Democracy dies another death

Just a few short weeks after publication of one of the most damning civil court judgments I’ve read in recent times, the council at the centre of that legal storm are in the news again: For all the wrong reasons.

North Yorkshire County Council, based in sleepy Northallerton , is the host Authority for the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel. It receives a substantial Home Office grant for its trouble.

jobs_workingforus
Constructed in the early 1900’s by architect Walter Brierley, the Grade 2 listed County Hall at Northallerton has, also, previously seen service as a Red Cross hospital and as a temporary wartime home for the local grammar school.

The senior officer in charge of the Panel Secretariat is Barry Khan, a qualified solicitor who also fulfils other roles within the county council: Assistant Chief Executive; Head of Legal and Democratic Services; and Monitoring Officer. He moved to North Yorkshire in 2014 after previously working for Stockport Council.

Khan’s short incumbency at Northallerton has not been without controversy. Apart from the desperately shocking Jeanine Blamires case [1], there has been an alleged ‘stonewalling’ over child safeguarding failures in at least one school in the quaint seaside town of Whitby.

His previous role as Solicitor and Monitoring Officer at Stockport Borough Council was not plain sailing, either. Most notably, over peaceful protester Michael Parnell, who died following a period where he had been repeatedly arrested, detained but was, eventually, cleared after a three day Crown court trial [2].

Khan’s role in the mistreatment of Parnell, particularly in securing a restraining order against Mr Parnell to prevent him protesting, has not been subject to complaint or application, as far as can be traced. But Mr Parnell’s supporters, including democracy campaigner, Sheila Oliver, continue to express disquiet over the council’s contribution to the illness that led to his death. On any view, it is a troubling case.

In my own sporadic, direct dealings with Khan there have been no notable communication issues. But, that is definitely not the case with the staff deployed beneath him in the Secretariat hierarchy:

I have been lied to by Ray Busby (for which I received an apology); addressed inappropriately by the same officer (for which I received another apology); had personal data released onto a public forum by Diane Parsons (a matter denied by the Secretariat and currently under investigation by the Information Commissioner) and treated to a display of ignorance and stubbornness over the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 2000, by the same officer, that simply beggars belief. To the extent that it would be a relatively easy step, given the history, to infer that the intention of the Secretariat was to vex, annoy and harass.

That history also includes a complaint that I made against Julia Mulligan, in July 2015, that concerned the failure of the Police Commissioner to hold the Chief Constable, Dave Jones, to account over a number of issues that included inter alia:

The £1 million funding of failed harassment prosecutions and a civil claim mounted by four very senior police officers and a political crony, Jane Kenyon [2a]; Poor communication/engagement: 101 service; Non-compliant Freedom of Information Act finalisations; Failure to publish Decision Notices:

The complaints were not upheld by the Panel, despite subsequent events proving, beyond doubt, that each one of those matters was, in fact, validly raised. In most cases, accompanied by seriously adverse publicity for the Commissioner, or the force. Or both.

The fact that I succeeded in a county court claim against the Police Commissioner, in February 2017, over data protection breach, has never appeared in Panel minutes either. Neither has reference to the £20,000 plus of public funds expended on defending that claim, and a parallel one against the Chief Constable.

More recent Panel failings include the chief executive farrago. Again, costing precept payers a fortune (latest estimates suggest a figure close to £80,000). Substantive post holder, Joanna Carter, is believed not to have been in post since very early in 2016. There have been two temporary ‘replacements’ variously imported from other PCC’s as acting, or interim, chief executive. Both Simon Dennis and Fraser Sampson, it is fair to say, arrived on the scene with ‘baggage’. Sampson and I clashed, repeatedly, during his tenure at, firstly, the disgraced West Yorkshire Police Authority and, later, the Office of the Police and Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

All questions to the North Yorkshire Commissioner’s office, concerning the absence of Ms Carter, are resolutely stonewalled: Even when they are legally obliged to provide answers, by way of an FOIA request [2b]. An insider has said that questions put by the Panel to the Commissioner, and Sampson, about Ms Carter’s unavailability have been fobbed off (unreported in the minutes it must be said). Another well-placed source says that Ms Carter signed off ill with stress, as a result of a series of disagreements with her ‘high-handed’ employer.

With Sampson now in post until 2019, the presumption is that Joanna Carter is not returning and, quite possibly, in legal dispute with Julia Mulligan. If this is the case, and absence of hard information only fuels speculation, then either a compromise agreement, or Tribunal proceedings, is going to cost the precept payer a mighty sum. Which would, of course, explain the wall of silence around the issue.

These are precisely the issues over which the Panel should be holding the PCC to account but, yet again, the meeting minutes (and Decision Notice) are silent on the fate of Ms Carter, a statutory appointment, and, as such, open to particular scrutiny.

It was a similar situation over the appointment of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, Will Naylor. It is established, beyond doubt, that Naylor embroidered his employment history and had little, or no, relevant experience in taking on the role. Other than as a Conservative Party policy wonk [3].

There were also serious concerns about the recruitment process for the Deputy role, which had all the appearance of a well-orchestrated sham. The upshot was that, in a rare flexing of scrutiny muscle, the Panel decided that the confirmation of Naylor’s appointment was conditional of sight of a personal development plan, and a six month trial period, after which he would appear before the Panel. Which all sounded fine, until Mrs Mulligan unilaterally decided that the plan wouldn’t be produced after all – and Naylor didn’t appear before the Panel as scheduled to have his capabilities, qualifications, performance further examined [4].

Another scandal to surface very recently, unscrutinised, is the dramatic increase in office costs of the profligate PCC. In one year, ending March 2017, they have risen from £741,000 to £908,000. Over 20%. Which does not include the legal costs referred to above, which are tucked away elsewhere in the accounts. This flies in the face of what Mrs Mulligan told the Panel when the decision to have a Deputy was thrust upon them, unannounced, last September. There has been nothing, whatsoever, noted in the Panel meeting minutes, or any warning given by the PCC, that such a steep rise was on the cards.

NYPCC office costs 2016-17

But the most recent scrutiny fail concerns a remarkable refusal to accept a public question, from myself, at the Panel meeting which took place on 20th July, 2017. This was the question exactly as framed:

Freedom of Information Act compliance
 
(A) Statement
In July and September 2015, in response to a complaint and a public question made by me, these were amongst the submissions made by Joanna Carter, the chief executive at the time.
(i) At page 18 of the complaint response it was said:
“The Commissioner would agree that the FOI performance could improve, and that the quality of answers given on occasion could also improve….”
(ii) At page of the PQT response it was said:
“All FOIA’s, including any relating to this issue (Operations Rome and Hyson) are routinely published on the NYP/NYPCC website”.
Since those answers were provided,
(i) It is evident that not all requests relating to Operation Hyson and Rome were not published on the force disclosure log. Indeed, it is the regular practice of the force to conceal requests that may be perceived as causing reputational damage.
(iv) The force has refused an information request from me to establish the extent of the issue. A matter presently before the Information Commissioner (see attached WhatDoTheyKnow file).
(v) FOIA performance has worsened. To the extent that over 500 requests per annum are finalised unlawfully (See attached FOIA finalisation). That is a quantitative analysis, the figure would be much higher addressed qualitatively. Poor quality finalisations still feature regularly.
(vi) The Information Commissioner has indicated within Tribunal proceedings that the Civil Disclosure Unit are now under a monitoring regime as a result of poor performance (I have requested disclosure from them of more complete details).
(vii) If the oral and written submissions of the police lawyer running the CDU, to both the County Court and the First Tier Tibunal, are to be believed there are now less staff deployed in that Unit, than two years ago.
(viii) The Commissioner and the Chief Constable are both spending substantial amounts of public funds defending civil claims and Tribunal proceedings concerning FOIA where, on their face, the prime motivation is to avoid scrutiny and reputational harm, rather than the preservation of information rights. In the past year that figure, in my own knowledge exceeds £30,000 with the potential for that figure to double in the present financial year.
(B) Question
What steps has the Commissioner taken to:
(i)   Apprise herself of the extent of the non-compliance issues extant within the Civil Discloure Unit?
(ii)  Hold the Chief Constable to account over these long-term, repeated failings to comply with the law and use of public funds?
(iii) Keep the Panel informed?

Firstly, the email sending the question and supporting documents was intercepted and quarantined.

The Panel Secretariat, in the form of the aforementioned Diane Parsons, came back the following day and refused permission to ask the question. She said: “Having consulted the Panel Chair on your submission, I regret that the Panel are therefore unable to take your questions at the meeting this week.  However, I have passed your correspondence and attachments to the OPCC so that they are aware of the concerns you have raised“.

The rationale appeared to be that these were not matters with which the Scrutiny Panel need concern themselves: “To clarify, the purpose of PQT is to enable members of the public who live, work or study in North Yorkshire to engage directly with the Panel and pose questions on its remit and functions.  I have attached, if helpful, a copy of the Panel’s guidelines on PQT.  Any statements or concerns which you feel require the attention of the Commissioner would need to be directed through her office“.

The email from Ms Parsons, unusually, was comprised of three different fonts, and had obviously passed through a number of hands before she was elected as message bearer. The unseen hand of Barry Khan was, no doubt, part of the behind-the-scenes subterfuge.

As a card-carrying member of the press, the residency issue is a non-starter; I have previously posed a question to the same Panel: complaints against the PCC have also been considered by the same Panel; and on any reasonable, independent view the questions I posed met the Panels own guidelines or, even if the Panel felt they did not, modification was a very simple process.

But that, plainly, did not suit the Panel, or its Secretariat’s, purpose. To conceal their own failings as a scrutiny body, yet again, was clearly paramount. There was also what some might view as an unattractive element of childishness implicit within the response – and the intercepting of the email even before it reached the intended recipient. Which rather suggests that North Yorkshire County Council are interfering with my communications.

Following the re-direction of the public questions to the Police Commissioner’s office there has been a deathly silence. Which has also been the case from Deputy Chair of the Panel, Ashley Mason, who was passed full details of the questions prior to the Panel meeting taking place, by a well-known local democracy campaigner. Cllr Mason was rather more loquacious when, as if on cue, another unmitigated 101 disaster befell NYP during the first week of August, 2017 [4a].

This is a story that has some way to run yet as more information is passed to me by a source close to the Panel. This includes the claim, surprising to me at least, that the Panel chair, Cllr Carl Les, and the PCC do not see eye to eye, and that at least one conscripted Panel Member is very reluctant to take on her duties, having been pressed into service following the abrupt departure of another Member last year. A situation that chimes with a number of senior Conservative figures turning on Mrs Mulligan over her ‘crazy’ plans to take control of the North Yorkshire fire service [5].

There are also, it is said, serious frustrations at the PCC’s frequent refusal to provide requested documents, information to the Panel Secretariat. Again, a matter unreported in the minutes. There is also another controversy concerning the minutes as they are sometimes not, according to my source, a true record of what actually transpired at the Panel meetings. That would fit, certainly, with the known modus operandum of Fraser Sampson.

North Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel is, obviously, not a happy ship and needs an rapid overhaul, tip to stern.

The Police Commissioner’s office and the Panel Secretariat have both been approached for comment. Neither acknowledged the request.

Page last updated: Wednesday 2nd August, 2017 at 1745hrs

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.

[1] Leeds County Court, 21st June, 2017: Judgment of District Judge Joanna Geddes in Jeanine Blamires -v- Local Government Ombudsman

[2] Manchester Evening News, 19th September, 2013: ‘Protester who held three year vigil outside Stockport Town Hall dies

[3] Neil Wilby, 22nd October, 2016: ‘Where there’s a Will there’s a way

[4] Neil Wilby, 23rd November, 2016: ‘Pick of the crop’

[4a] York Press: 4th August, 2017: Police apologise after telling public NOT to call 101

[5] Harrogate Advertiser, 25th July, 2017: ‘Police tsar plan for fire service branded ‘crazy”

© Neil Wilby 2015-2016. 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.

Pick of the crop?

On Monday 21st November, 2016 an item was posted on the website of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (NYPCC) [1]. It was unheralded elesewhere. No local press coverage. No announcement on the busy NYPCC Twitter feed. No mention on the ‘News’ section of the PCC’s website. Nothing.

The announcement concerned the beginning of a new era for the public of the county as Will Naylor was confirmed in his new role as Deputy to the Commissioner, Julia Mulligan.

will-naylor
William Naylor: Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire. This is the first picture of Will published on the internet after spending the entirety of his past career in virtual obscurity.                                Picture credit: NYPCC

An article published on this website in October, 2016 ‘Where there’s a Will there’s a way‘ has already covered some of the controversy surrounding the selection process. Since that exposé first appeared it now has the makings of a full-blown scandal – that may well bring about the downfall of some of those involved in this increasingly convoluted tale.

What has emerged is that the PCC’s chief of staff was, seemingly, the ‘chosen one’ some months ago, and a process subsequently devised with no other apparent purpose than to hoodwink both the public and the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel for North Yorkshire (PCP).

The investigation that has followed the ‘Where there’s a Will there’s a way‘ article has pieced this picture together:

– The job of Deputy PCC was advertised by NYPCC externally just the ONCE: On the Guardian newspaper’s website [2], at a cost of just £900. Which buys very little, as can be seen from the publisher’s rate card [3].

– The job was promoted just ONCE by the PCC’s Twitter account (on 16th August, 2016). Compared, say, to activity connected with a recent ‘Tell Julia’ survey which was promoted regularly TEN times per DAY.

– The job was NOT advertised in the two conventional recruitment outlets in the area – The York Evening Press or the Yorkshire Post. Despite the fact that Mrs Mulligan was, apparently, insisting that the successful candidate would be required to live in North Yorkshire.

– The job was NOT advertised with either Police Oracle or Police Professional (PP) which, as their names imply, carry the overwhelming bulk of jobs connected to policing bodies. A fact not lost on NYPCC Interim Chief Executive, Fraser Sampson, as he and PP’s editor, Paul Lander, are former West Yorkshire Police contemporaries.

–  The recruitment advertising, minimal as it was, took place in the middle of the Summer school holiday period.

– Julia Mulligan arranged for what she describes as an INDEPENDENT recruitment process to take place. Except that there was nothing ‘independent’ about it at all. It was, to all intents and purposes, a sham managed by her former Acting Chief Executive, Simon Dennis.

– The composition of the selection panel is still unknown, even after a another freedom of information request made by York governance campaigner, Matthew Laverack. Despite the usual positing of Mrs Mulligan that the process was ‘open and transparent‘ [3A].

– The Naylor application was, taken at it’s face, unlawful. Section 18(6)(h) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 sets out that a PCC cannot appoint a member of her own staff to the role of the Deputy PCC.

– There were sixteen ‘expressions of interest’ for the job. All ‘met the minimum standards’ according to Julia Mulligan in her report to the PCP.

– Only four of the sixteen applicants were selected for interview. Two dropped out prior to interview, leaving Will Naylor, complete with the doubts about the legitimacy of his application, to bid with just one other shortlisted candidate for the £45,000 – £50,000 role.

– No explanation has been provided as to why a further two candidates were not selected for interview from the remaining pool of twelve candidates.

– The interviewing panel comprised four people. Three of whom were either working with Will, or had been very recently: Julia Mulligan, Fraser Sampson and Simon Dennis. The fourth was York city councillor and former schoolteacher, Keith Aspden.

– None of the interviewing panel recused themselves, despite the glaring conflict of interest.

– Neither of the two solicitors on the interviewing panel, Messrs Dennis and Sampson, gave due consideration to the point that Will Naylor should not have even been there. No external opinion was sought according to disclosure via a freedom of information request.

– Will has falsely claimed in his biography on the NYPCC website that, before joining NYPCC in January, 2013, he was ‘Chief of Staff’ to Helen Grant MP. It is not known whether that falsehood was repeated in his job application.

– The false claim has now been removed. An updated bio says he was a SENIOR parliamentary assistant for Mrs Grant. Or, in other words, a Conservative party political researcher. A press enquiry has been sent to Mrs Grant; it seeks clarification on Will’s role in her office, the duration of his employment and whether she was asked to provide a reference to the selection panel.

– He has also claimed that he ‘worked in Parliament for two other MP’s‘ prior to working for Mrs Grant. There is no trace of this employment on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) website. Clarification has been sought from IPSA, .

– On social media, NYPCC has steadfastly refused to answer the question as to whom these mystery MP’s are. The reason for not doing so, given via a direct message on Twitter is ‘because the answer could be perceived as political and the OPCC is politically independent, we feel that Twitter is not the place to respond‘. The provisional assumption is, therefore, that if Will has worked for MP’s other than Helen Grant, they were Conservatives and he doesn’t want the wider world to know that.

– There has been a protest from NYPCC’s Digital Engagement Officer, Simon Jones, that he has been misrepresented by the above (verbatim) quote. He claims that details that would support claims made by Will Naylor over his past employment history is a personal matter – and for Will to respond privately rather than in an open space such as Twitter. That use not a view that is widely shared by those paying both Simon and Will’s wages. Particularly, as the new Deputy PCC has been caught out in a lie once already.

– Will has also claimed that he has worked for ‘Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) based at the Home Office’. HMIC have ducked a press enquiry on the topic, after having been pressured to respond at all. It has now been necessary to submit a freedom of information request in an attempt to elicit the information [4].

Some other pieces of the jigsaw were fitted together following the response to a freedom of information request was submitted to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland (COPCC) on 2nd November, 2016 [5].

– The preamble to the response contained a palpable falsehood. It claimed that ‘the majority’ of the information sought had already been published by the PCP. A claim as ludicrous as it is untrue.

– It is now revealed that not a single piece of paper exists to formalise this ‘independent’ recruitment process – and it was organised on the back of what appears to be an off-the-cuff discussion between Simon Dennis and Mrs Mulligan in the period during which they were working together (April to mid-July 2016) as chief executive and commissioner, respectively.

– No invoice has been raised from COPCC to NYPCC in connection with that provision of services. Not even for the cost of the Guardian advertisement.

– The following information concerning the shortlisted candidates has now been revealed:
The four shortlisted candidates were all male.  Two held a Masters degree, one a BA (Hons), the fourth was not a graduate. Two were resident in North Yorkshire, one in Nottinghamshire and one in Sussex.

– Incredibly, it is claimed that COPCC who conducted the recruitment and selection process do NOT know the ages of the four shortlisted candidates. A decision that has already been appealed. Whilst there are guidelines that preclude employers discriminating on grounds of age it would be remarkable, indeed, if no date of birth was given on ANY of the CV’s of those men who made the ‘final four’.

– Similarly, they say that revealing the job titles (not their names, or the names of their employer) of the three unsuccessful candidates would constitute PERSONAL information and, as such, exempt from disclosure. Again, a decision that has already been appealed.

– As revealed above, four shortlisted candidates became two. No reason for withdrawal was given by one, the other backed out over the residency issue.

–  COPCC make the incredible claim that, as recruitment facilitors, they do NOT know if the three other candidates shortlisted were made aware of Will Naylor’s extant close working relationship with most of the other members of the interviewing panel: Julia Mulligan, Simon Dennis and Fraser Sampson? Even though Dennis is Chief Executive of COPCC.

– What steps were taken by COPCC to establish that the application of Will Naylor was lawful, given that he was already an employee of NYPCC and, as such, ineligible by way of Section 18 (6)(h) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
b. If external advice/opinion was sought please provide name of solicitor/counsel.

The information request would, doubtless, have been finalised under the supervision of the aforementioned Simon Dennis, and in consultation with NYPCC as to what might give the game away, or otherwise.

As Simon, and doubtless, the others involved in it, now realise that the full nature and extent of this ‘sham’ recruitment process is on the cusp of being exposed, it is expected that issues over the remaining disclosure will end up before the Information Comissioner for determination.

Draft minutes have also been sought from the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel, which are expected to shed further light on this increasingly troubled matter [6]. Their statutory report, and conditional confirmation of the appointment of the PCC’s ‘preferred candidate’, is now in the public domain and provides some interesting insight [7].

From the report it can be gleaned that at least some of the Panel member’s had reservations about the successful candidate’s relevant experience and ability. Or, rather, lack of it. His independence was also questioned, having been an employee of the Commissioner for almost four years.

In personal submissions made to the Panel, Will asserted his honesty and said that he was committed fully to the policing code of ethics, and to upholding the highest professional standards. Which present a condundrum in the face of the deceit and obfuscation over his own career history – and that fact that the office he has run for the past three years has little recognisable regard for either ethics, or professionalism. The most glaring, and public, examples are the perpetual non-compliance over information requests or data access – and routine chicanery over published Decision Notices. Compounded by the seeming inability of anyone at PCC HQ, including the Commissioner herself, to give a straight answer to a straight question.

But the question that needs answering most of all is: Was Will Naylor truly the pick of the crop of sixteen candidates, in a honestly held process, for the role of Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner? It is one that should be put to Mrs Mulligan, in public, at the next PCP meeting in January, 2017.

The new Deputy Commissioner, who cited a commitment to better public public engagement as part of his job pitch, has declined to respond to an invitation to comment on the article.

[1] North Yorkshire PCC: 21st November, 2016. ‘Deputy PCC – Will Naylor’

[2] The Guardian: 18th August, 2016. Situations vacant advertisement Deputy PCC for North Yorkshire

[3] The Guardian: Situations vacant rate card

[4] WhatDoTheyKnow: 23rd November, 2016. Deputy PCC for North Yorkshire’s previous employment with HMIC

[5] WhatDoTheyKnow: 2nd November, 2016. Appointment of Deputy PCC for North Yorkshire

[6] WhatDoTheyKnow: 26th November, 2016. Draft Minutes of Panel Meeting

[7] North Yorkshire Police & Crime Scrutiny Panel: 19th October, 2016. Report of Confirmation Hearing

Page last updated Thursday 1st December, 2016 at 1820hrs

Corrections: Please let us 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.

Copyright: Neil Wilby 2015-2016. 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.

Where there’s a Will there’s a way

Over the past two years, I have had a considerable amount of dealings with Will Naylor in his role as Chief of Staff to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in North Yorkshire. He is a personable man, generally courteous and, mostly, helpful insofar as the limitations of his present role allow.

Will appears popular with both the PCC and the two of his staff with whom I have the most dealings, Digital Engagement Officer Simon Jones and Caseworker, Sheree Evans. It is also to Will’s credit that Simon and Sheree are a reflection of himself as polite, largely helpful public servants. There is also a good ‘feel’ as visitors walk into the their HQ in Harrogate, which is usually a sign of a happy, functioning team. (Since this article was first written Sheree has now left the PCC’s employment in a sudden, unexplained departure).

169917119
‘House of Secrets’? Only a small sign on the front of the building reveals that it is the NYPCC headquarters in leafy Granby Road, Harrogate.

But, for all of that, it came as something of a shock when I saw that his name had been put forward as the preferred candidate for the newly created position of Deputy PCC. The concept of feather duster to peacock immediately sprung to mind.

Setting aside his present, or future, capabilities for the job, I couldn’t visualise the transition from a virtually anonymous, innocuous office manager role to the PCC’s Deputy. Type ‘Will Naylor‘ into Google and you learn nothing. No image, no background, no colour, no public persona. Nothing. It is as though he landed at PCC HQ from Mars.

Whereas, according to the perpetually unreliable PCC website, he arrived from the office of Helen Grant, MP for Maidstone, whose relatively short incumbency in Parliament has been dogged by controversy. It will come as no surprise that they have included expenses and staffing scandals [1].

Rather more surprising is that Will is described on the PCC’s website as Mrs Grant’s former chief of staff. The local Kent press described him as her parliamentary assistant. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority website clearly shows that there is no such recognised position as chief of staff in an MP’s office. So who is kidding whom?

Also, my understanding of the legislation (section 18 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011) is that a PCC cannot appoint a member of his/her own staff as a Deputy PCC, a point taken up by others, to some effect, later in the process.

There had been considerable controversy when a rather better known Labour policy wonk, and failed MP candidate, Isabel Owen, made the transition from working as a ‘consultant’ for the PCC, in neighbouring West Yorkshire, to Deputy PCC [2]. It didn’t harm Ms Owen’s cause that she is married to Peter Nicholson, the Regional Director of the Yorkshire and Humber Labour Party.

Interestingly, one of the key facilitators of Will Naylor’s candidacy, interim NYPCC chief executive, Fraser Sampson, was also closely associated with the Owen appointment in his role as WYOPCC’s substantive, and hugely rewarded, chief executive.

Some have argued strongly against the need for such a Deputy position in North Yorkshire, such as the Police Federation’s voice in the county, Mike Stubbs. He says the timing is ‘unfortunate‘ and there are ‘damaging perceptions of cronyism and jobs for the boys‘ around the appointments of Deputies.

I am not in that group. Having seen the level of her own personal commitment, and the number of hours Julia Mulligan puts into the job, I take the view that if she is able to weave such a role into her office costs budget there are significant operational benefits in having a reliable Deputy to take on some of the more time-consuming parts of the PCC’s remit, such as constituency surgeries.

Whether Will Naylor is the right man remains to be seen. A key reservation would be, in my own experience, is that, like Julia, awkward issues are invariably fudged away, or ducked altogether. A very vivid example of this is the nationally-known scandal over Operations Rome and Hyson. About which, much has been written elsewhere.

Between the two of them, I have never once heard, or read, any criticism whatsoever of the chief constable, or the shortcomings of his force, over whom they have holding to account responsibility. Either publicly, in meetings, or in correspondence.

chief-constable-dave-jones-and-commissioner-julia-mulligan
Chief Constable Dave Jones in a familar PR pose with PCC Julia Mulligan. Jones has escaped any criticism from Mrs Mulligan since his appointment in April 2013, but both face three emerging scandals concerning: the infamous  ‘Pink Gun’ tribunal case; a Court of Appeal judgment over a failed rape case that was scathing about both Jones’ and the force’s conduct; and a third matter, also concerning a failed rape case in which the victim has been treated poorly by both the force and PCC.

It is a statutory requirement that a confirmation hearing takes place, once a PCC decides on his/her preferred candidate for Deputy Commissioner. This is part of the remit of the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel (PCP) and an agenda item was set aside for the purpose at their meeting on 6th October, 2016. The full agenda for that meeting, including some interesting background papers relating to the appointment process can be read here [3].

The report that flowed from that hearing, also a statutory requirement, was published on 19th October, 2016 [4]. It revealed a surprising amount of rigour, for a committee noted in the past only for its torpor, and the findings were very much in line with my own views.

Will Naylor was recommended by the Panel only by a majority verdict – and provided certain conditions are met. That is unsurprising, given some of the questions that were asked of him by the Members and the obvious flakiness of some of the material presented, both by Julia Mulligan in her own report on the recruitment process, and Will himself in his personal statement, which was absent, for example, of any substantive details of qualifications, previous employment and relevant experience.

It can be seen from their report that the Panel challenged the preferred candidate in a number of key areas. Particularly his professional competence, personal independence and experience in a public-facing role. The outcome being that there are considered to be  ‘gaps’ in his competencies and doubts about his independence – and the Panel require a Personal Development Plan (PDP) in place if the PCC can demonstrate that the appointment is, indeed, lawful and she formally offers the position to Will Naylor, once he has resigned his post as Chief of Staff.

However, to my eye there were also some obvious shortcomings in the Panel’s report: The number of candidates who applied and were then, subsequently, interviewed is not disclosed. Or declared by the PCC in her report. That is now the subject of separate information requests to both the PCC’s office and the PCP, after repeated refusal by Simon Jones (presumably acting on istructions from above) to provide that information via Twitter. This in spite of the written claim made by Julia Mulligan to the Panel that the recruitment process was ‘open and transparent’.

screen-shot-2016-10-23-at-09-53-27
Twitter interchange with Simon Jones (no relation to chief constable) who is the PCC’s Digital Engagement Officer and runs their Twitter account which has, since November 2012, accumulated just 2,350 followers. Many of them outside of North Yorkshire’s pool of  602,000 constituents and 1,500 police officers and staff.

There is also mention in the PCC’s report of a well qualified pool of candidates applying for the post, who met all the selection criteria, and Will being the best of the bunch. That on it’s face appears counter-intuitive, given the potential shortcomings in his candicacy highlighted in the confirmation hearing. Put shortly, it doesn’t add up.

There is also no mention of his CV, or previous employment references being taken up, or whether they were satisfactory. Although this may well be covered under the ‘vetting’ procedure.

The freedom of information finalisation [5], which came 26 days after the questions were first asked, has now opened up other interesting lines of enquiry into this selection process [6]. What is now known is that there were, allegedly, 16 candidates who responded to a single, small press advert in The Guardian, costing just £900. The job was not advertised in the conventional outlets for recruitment advertisements of this nature, the Yorkshire Post, Northern Echo or York Evening Press, which would strike most commentators as odd, to say the least.

Of the 16 whom expressed interest, 4 were selected for interview by an unnamed ‘Selection Panel’. Curiously, two did not appear before the interviewing panel. This left Will Naylor and one other. The rest, as they say, is history. Of the interviewing panel three were past or present close working colleagues of Will’s: Julia Mulligan, the aforementioned Fraser Sampson and Simon Dennis. The latter had orchestrated the entire selection process at the invitation of NYPCC. Simon is also featured in another article on this website [7]

So, it seems, where there’s a Will there’s a way to make him your Deputy if, of course, your name is Julia Mulligan and you have the backing of Chair, Carl Les, and the Conservative hardcore on the Panel. Even if it means bending the law – and not quite being as frank as you ought to be about the recruitment process.

But, good luck to Will. He may yet turn out to be the people’s champion on policing matters in North Yorkshire, and be the first to stand up to some of the wilder excesses of the chief constable. In his personal statement to the PCP he cited, quite oddly, that he wanted to ensure that harassment allegations were investigated much better by the police. Perhaps he was mindful of this case [8] which has caused the PCC’s office and the force so much damage to their good standing?

Page last updated Saturday 5th November, 2016 at 1150hrs

Annotations

[1] Wikipedia: Helen Grant MP

[2] Yorkshire Post 11th April, 2013: ‘Police role given green light after crony row’

[3] North Yorks PCP 6th October, 2016: Meeting agenda including Deputy PCC papers

[4] North Yorks PCP 19th October, 2016: Report on Deputy PCC confirmation hearing

[5] What Do They Know 12th October, 2012: ‘Appointment of Deputy PCC’

[6] What Do They Know 2nd November, 2016: ‘Appointment of Deputy PCC’

[7] Neil Wilby 22nd May, 2016: ‘The Inn of Last Resort’

[8] Private Eye 31st August, 2016: ‘North York Boors’

Corrections: Please let us 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.

Copyright: Neil Wilby 2015-2016. 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.

‘Open and transparent’ Police & Crime Commissioner stonewalls questions over public misconduct hearings

There are few words in the policing lexicon that crop up more often than ‘open’ and ‘transparent’. Some luminaries, such as North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Julia Mulligan, use it so often that they actually begin to believe in the myth.

There are few words in the policing lexicon that crop up more often than ‘open’ and ‘transparent’. Some luminaries, such as North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Julia Mulligan, use it so often that they actually begin to believe in the myth.

The latest example cropped up only yesterday with a story run by the usually police-friendly York Press [1]. The thrust of the piece is that a reporter from their sister newspaper, The Northern Echo, was denied entry to a police disciplinary hearing due to open at police HQ at Newby Wiske, near Northallerton.

Up pops Mrs Mulligan and immediately pledges to “put transparency at the heart of this process”. Conveniently forgetting that it is already a statutory requirement to do so under Police (Conduct) Regulations [2].

But that is only half the story. Misconduct hearings against North Yorkshire Police (NYP) officers alleged to be in breach of Standards of Professional Behaviour [3] fall under the remit of their Professional Standards Department (PSD). It is a part of NYP’s operations that has come under stinging criticism over the past few years. Not least from myself in other articles on this website.

insp-sarah-sanderson

Prior to the current proceedings, involving gross misconduct allegations against Inspector Sarah Sanderson (with whom I had a brief and uncontroversial professional interchange in August 2012, just before her promotion to T/Chief Inspector), there has only been one other misconduct meeting heard in public involving a NYP officer. This was the widely reported ‘I love weed‘ case involving ex-PC Simon Ryan [4].

Having accidentally discovered it was taking place whilst researching for another article, I actually registered via the NYP website for the Ryan hearing, although as a press card carrying journalist it galled me to do so.

A response came two days later from an unidentified PSD officer (no name, no collar number which is, of itself, a breach of the Code of Ethics) who informed me that ‘a seat had been allocated‘.

There were also other myriad conditions which were set out at this weblink [5]. The sum of it was, there were no facilities at all for reporters, and they were also being asked to leave the building every time the hearing adjourned. Which for proceedings of this type is usually frequently.

I asked PSD by email if a small room with just a table and some chairs could be provided, so that reporters could do their job. An anonymous responder (again) informed me: “I’m afraid that we do not have the available space in order to facilitate your request“.

No catering or drink facility was to be provided to attendees at the hearing – press or otherwise – and I didn’t get as far as asking about toilet facilities.

For my part, I decided that three 140 mile round trips, at my own expense, with no guarantee that my two battery powered devices would last the day without infusion of mains electricity, added to the prospect of flask and sandwiches in the car, and trying to work my laptop on my knee during the hearing, was not at all an appealing combination. I concentrated on other work and hoped one of the local or regional newspapers, who covered NYP matters, would report on the proceedings.

In the event, the hearing only lasted two days and only Tom Wilkinson from the Press Association was in attendance. As such, he still holds the distinction of being the one journalist ever to attend a NYP misconduct hearing.

Unless there is an entirely different approach taken towards the press, after Mrs Mulligan has spoken to the Chief Constable, then Tom might hold that record for some time yet. It is also interesting that he hasn’t ventured to Newby Wiske Hall for a second time.

The PCC and the chief could make a start by changing the venue from Newby Wiske Hall for a start. If it doesn’t have the requisite facilities then why hold hearings there? A question that has been put to both Mrs Mulligan and Dave Jones.

In the interests of ‘openness’ and ‘transparency’ neither even responded to the email seeking comment. Two questions were put to both police chiefs:

1. Why are card-carrying journalists required to register to attend disciplinary hearings?
2. Why is Newby Wiske Hall used as a venue when it is plainly unsuitable?
Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions as to whether they are in the public interest and it was reasonable of Mr Jones and Mulligan to stonewall them.

 

Page last updated: Wednesday 21st September, 2016 at 1750hrs

[1] York Press 19th September, 2016: ‘North Yorkshire PCC will speak to Chief Constable after reporter refused entry’.

[2] Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012.

[3] North Yorkshire Police: Ethics and Standards.

[4] BBC News 14th June, 2016: ‘I love weed hat PC Simon Ryan sacked from North Yorkshire Police’.

[5] North Yorkshire Police: Misconduct hearings.

 

Photo credit: Northern Echo

 

Madgwick goes for Gold

North Yorkshire Police’s longest serving Command Team officer is Timothy Madgwick. He was promoted to ACPO rank in 2009. Three years later he was leading the force after the departure of disgraced chief constable, Grahame Maxwell [1].

Elevation to the top job completed an astonishing, meteoric rise through the ranks for Madgwick that saw five promotions in ten years, following a spell as staff officer to the then chief constable, David Kenworthy and, later, a chief of staff role with Maxwell shortly after the latter had joined NYP from the troubled South Yorkshire Police. Maxwell had spent the previous twenty three years at two other deeply corrupt police forces: Cleveland and West Yorkshire.

Kenworthy, awarded the Queen’s Police Medal (QPM) in 1996, whilst serving with Avon and Somerset Police, has held a post as one of fifty Deputy Lord Lieutenants in North Yorkshire since 2004. The Lord Lieutenant is, of course, The Queen’s personal representative. Establishment frippery at its most prolific. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to deduce that the regally connected Kenworthy may have had a hand in the nomination for an award of the same gong to his former protegé, and near Easingwold neighbour, last year.

stream_img

As the same medal is held by the likes of the aforementioned Maxwell – and other shamed chief constables with connections to Yorkshire, such as Sir Norman Bettison, Sir Stephen House, David Crompton, Meredydd HughesDavid Westwood, Mark GilmoreSean Price and York-born Nick Gargan, it is not worth the rag to which is attached. There are certain to be other bemedalled chief officers outside of God’s Own County, who have shamed the police service, for those with the time to search.

Mark Gilmore is hoping to salvage his damaged reputation in civil proceedings against his police commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson, that are currently lodged with the High Court.

At the time Tim Madgwick took over as temporary chief in May 2012, his predecessor and mentor, Maxwell, had told the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), during a gross misconduct investigation [2], that “he could do what he wanted because he was the Chief Constable”. Looking at the number and scale of controversies that had dogged the force over the previous ten years that was obviously the mindset of the force’s leaders and those closest to them. Few being closer, of course, than the high-flying Madgwick.

Six months prior to his elevation to the top job, an investigation had been launched by NYP in which Madgwick had been appointed Gold Commander by Maxwell. This was codenamed by the force ‘Operation Rome‘ and is one that has been dogged by controversy from its early days. Much has been written about the probe already, including on this website [3] and [4], and, for the last twelve months, there has been a running battle between myself and a police force obsessed with covering up the truth.

Rome was an investigation of such mind-numbing mediocrity that the public has every right to see the audit trail of the decision-making, in an operation that the force themselves claim cost over £400,000. The mandatory lessons learned reporting should also be made public, even though in this particular case, on present evidence, there appears to be just one: Don’t trust Tim Madgwick with anything more complex than operating a dashboard-mounted speed camera.

In the near three years that the investigation lasted, it appears there were just three suspects and the alleged criminal activity was harassment without violence. One of the suspects, well known citizen journalist Nigel Ward, was never interviewed and no harassment warnings (PIN’s) were issued. Another citizen journalist, Tim Hicks, was interviewed at Fulford Road police station in York, but harassment scarcely featured in the police questioning. The detectives seemed much more concerned with protecting the reputation of NYP and preventing articles being written about the force. The suspect’s London solicitor, David Niven of Penningtons wrote to NYP’s Head of Legal Services, Simon Dennis, after the police interview in the most scathing terms [5].

Dennis, on whose watch the Maxwell debacle (and a number of others) unfolded and who now works for the Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner, is also roundly criticised elsewhere on this website [6]. Including over the way he has handled complaints about Madgwick.

Following the investigations into alleged harassment by the heavyweight Operation Rome team, two seperate evidence packages were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for charging decisions. Both were rejected by the CPS. Given the relatively low evidential threshold for this type of offence that is noteworthy failure by NYP.

The latest skirmish between myself and the force in the quest for the truth over the Rome debacle was a freedom of information request submitted in August, 2016. Answers were sought to these five questions:

1. Name(s)/rank(s) of Gold Commander of this operation.
2. Name(s)/rank(s) of Senior Investigating Officer(s).
3. Policy log (sometimes described as the policy book)
4. Final investigation report
(it is accepted that items 3. and 4. will be redacted to protect exempted personal information).
5. All documents connected with collection, classification and codifying of financial information that produced the alleged final investigation cost of £409,970.

NYP’s answer to the first question has already been incorporated into this piece, but poses several more queries as a result: Why was an assistant chief constable (as Madgwick was at the time) involved leading an investigation of this type? When he became chief constable, albeit temporarily, why did he continue in the role? In September, 2012 Madgwick gave a witness statement in the investigation alleging how he was a victim of harassing emails and on-line articles and images. At that point why did he not, properly and in accordance with all known approved policing practice, recuse himself from any further involvement in the investigation? The friendship of Madgwick with the police authority chair at the time, Jane Kenyon, another key figure driving the harassment allegations, should also have been sufficient reason for Madgwick to walk away. Miss Kenyon, regularly ridiculed in the satirical magazine Private Eye [6], and Madgwick’s wife Delia also have an association, previously undisclosed, through St Hilda’s School in Whitby, dating back to 1996.

KENYON_MADGWICK

The stunted answer to the second question also poses even more questions: It is now disclosed by NYP that there were not one, but two SIO’s. A detective superintendent and the head of the professional standards department. The force has refused to name them. They claim it is ‘personal information’. From other materials I have obtained in the course of my own investigations into Operation Rome I can say, with a reasonable amount of certainty, that the officers concerned were Detective Superintendent Heather Pearson (better known as a murder investigator) and Steven Read, a former assistant chief constable who, curiously, held the role as Head of PSD as a post-retirement, jobs-for-the-boys civilian. Which begs the obvious question: why were two officers of this seniority, working under the strategic command of a temporary chief constable, investigating harassment without violence allegations?

Pearson was later to be a recipient of an estimated £50,000 of free legal fees, provided by the force (along with Madgwick), in pursuing the same three suspects through the civil courts. Read, for reasons unknown, declined the force’s offer of the same benefit. It was also Pearson who portentiously told Hicks on 27th July, 2012 that she would bring civil action (beyond her police powers as it happens) on behalf of senior officers named in an article about the expenses scandal that was eventually to prove the downfall of Maxwell. Others named in that article included Madgwick, over police expenses allegedly claimed in pursuit of one of his many laudable hobbies and interests, the Special Olympics Group Board. Hicks, apart from his amateur journalism role, is also a chartered accountant, and certified fraud examiner, so is likely to know much more than the man in the street about such things. For their part, ‘open and transparent’ NYP stonewalled every legitimate enquiry made to establish the legitimacy of the claims.

The third and fourth questions produced a blank refusal. Relying, mainly, on the premise that releasing the policy log and investigation report would assist criminals in avoiding detection and give away police operational secrets. The reader is invited to bear in mind (again) this was a harassment without violence investigation in which the complaints centred around emails and articles published on the internet (as were a number of the emails). One of the purposes of the freedom of information request was to obtain an admission that these documents actually exist. Their response does this. However, until such times as they are disclosed – albeit in redacted form – I remain sceptical.

The fifth question received a similarly ludicrous response. NYP claim that they cannot disclose the requested documents, and audit trail of investigation costs, that was, at best, a contrived, back-of-the-envelope job produced with a pre-ordained figure in mind. Claiming that such documents could be protected by legal professional privilege has no basis in fact or law. As with the policy log and investigation report, I remain sceptical as to whether the documents actually exist and put that forward as a realistic hypothesis as to why they cannot be disclosed. Interestingly, the officer who allegedly compiled the figures, Force Solicitor Jane Wintermeyer, also heads up the department that deals with NYP’s FOI requests. She is another with connections to the Easingwold area.

A challenge to the unanswered questions, by way of an internal request, has been submitted to NYP [7] and will, doubtless be followed by a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). My submissions to the ICO will include this quote from Chief Constable Dave Jones and Police Commissioner, Julia Mulligan, in December, 2013 when issuing a statement concerning the efforts to procure repayment of monies allegedly owed to force by Grahame Maxwell and his former deputy, Adam Briggs:  “It will be the first time North Yorkshire Police will have published a report of this nature, and is in stark contrast to the old way of doing business and keeping reports like these under lock and key.”

The sharp eyed may have noted in my request for internal review that reference was made to the NYP civil disclosure unit (or much more likely Mrs Wintermeyer) putting FOI requests concerning Operation Rome (and the follow up Operation Hyson) into ‘special measures’ – and asking requesters to provide ID. Some of my other requests/internal reviews on Rome (and/or Hyson) are months overdue, which appears to bear that out.

In the meantime, Tim Madgwick will no doubt be treating his Twitter followers to his view of himself and North Yorkshire Police which range, generally, between ‘amazing‘, ‘great‘ and ‘fantastic‘. For my part, I will plod away, quietly and methodically, determined to get to the bottom of this shambles and expose the culpability of those involved in it, their propensity for deceit, and the true motive behind pursuing this Operation Rome beyond all sense or reason.

The last words for now go to Dave Jones. This is what he said at the time of the award of the QPM to his colleague: ‘Tim has led teams through some of the most serious incidents North Yorkshire Police has dealt with in recent years in an exemplary way‘.

 

Annotations:

[1] Daily Mail, 17th May 2012: Disgraced chief constable who tried to help relative get a job is given £250,000 golden goodbye

[2] Independent Police Complaints Commission report, May 2011 ref 2010/005240

[3] Neil Wilby, 14th February, 2015: Complete capitulation follows fall of Rome

[4] Neil Wilby, 20th March, 2016: 409,970 reasons not to trust North Yorkshire Police

[5] Penningtons letter to North Yorkshire Police, 9th August, 2012

[6] Neil Wilby, 6th September, 2016: In the Eye of the storm

[7] WhatDoTheyKnow, 8th August, 2016: Request Neil Wilby to NYP ref 350296-9eeb 1fd1

 

Page last updated Tuesday 13th September, 2016 at 1650hrs

© Neil Wilby 2015-2016. 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.

Deceit and subterfuge underpinned PCC’s decision to fund chief’s civil claim

Much has been written elsewhere, almost exclusively by me, concerning the North Yorkshire Police investigations codenamed Operations Rome and Hyson. The satirical magazine Private Eye did, however, break mainstream media ranks and publish an article in the last week of August, 2016 [1].

The Eye piece is a scathing condemnation of the failed criminal investigation (Rome), then the civil action (Hyson), mounted by Dave ‘Knacker’ Jones, North Yorkshire Police’s chief constable, against citizen journalists who were criticising his force.

This latest article of mine looks more closely at the deceit and subterfuge that surrounded the formal decision by Julia Mulligan, the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire, to use a huge amount of public funds to allow three high ranking police officers,  including Jones, one retired detective superintendent and a former Chair of North Yorkshire Police Authority in pursuit of harassment claims against two citizen journalists and a justice campaigner.

The civil court case, which is currently estimated to have cost the taxpayer £450,000 (Private Eye reckons it is higher than that), also featured four members of the Hofschröer family. Three as police funded claimants, Robert, Diane and Martin, and Peter (Robert’s brother) as defendant, with no funding.

It serves no useful purpose to rehearse here the infamous ‘Grandma B‘ campaign, mounted by Peter Hofschröer, over allegations that the other family members involved in the court case deprived his mother Barbara of the family home in Acomb, York with nefarious motive. My single contribution to this wholly unsatisfactory affair is to say that, on the face of the documents and evidence I have access to (which is not all of them, of course), the police picked the wrong side in the argument over the alleged property fraud.

The presence of Hofschröer family members on opposing sides of the claim gives the whole matter the bizarre feel of a family dispute gone terribly wrong. Whereas, the real motivation behind the civil claim was, say Private Eye, to silence the police force’s critics, once and for all. The Hofschröer family dispute just provided a convenient ‘cover story’ for that principal aim.

One of the many extraordinary aspects of the Hyson civil claim is that it was launched two months after Peter Hofschröer was arrested and held on remand, with no access to legal advice or his paper or electronic files. He has not been at liberty since and was convicted at Teesside Crown Court in July 2016 on indecent image charges [2].

Hofschröer now faces Part 1 extradition proceedings by the Austrian authorities at a Westminster Magistrates Court hearing listed for 15th September, 2016 on charges relating to stalking, child pornography and defamation under sections 107, 207 and 297 of the Austrian criminal code. It is also reported that he is appealing the paedophilia conviction, although how that could be grounded is not entirely clear, given that the trial was conducted by one of the North East Circuit’s longest serving judges, HHJ Tony Briggs QC.

The net effect of all this, as far as the police, and the rest of the Hofschröer family is concerned, is that none of the offensive articles about which they complained have yet been removed from the internet, nine months after an injunction prohibited their publication – and the likelihood of ever collecting the costs awarded against Peter Hofschröer are almost non-existant.

Put shortly, and given his continued incarceration over the criminal matters, the civil claim against him was a complete waste of time and money.

Which brings us to the decision to spend a vast amount of public money, made by the PCC and published on her website [3], some twelve months after she was required to do so, by law.

Despite being asked a number of times the PCC refuses to explain the delay between the first of the lawyers’ Hyson invoices pouring in (July 2015) and the Decision Note being put up, unannounced, on her website fifteen months later. What follows in this article will go a long way to unlocking that mystery.

To facilitate this analysis, the text of the formal Decision Note dated 29th September, 2015 is taken verbatim from the NYPCC website and highlighted below in blue. My comments, grounded mainly in responses to correspondence with the police and the PCC’s office, freedom of information request finalisations and public accounts access disclosures, are in black type beneath each section.

Screen Shot 2016-09-04 at 13.50.10

Executive Summary and Recommendation

The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) is ultimately responsible for representing the public in all matters, as well as overseeing  the policing budget to ensure good value for money for the taxpayer.

Many would submit, along with myself, that allocating around £50,000 each in free legal fees to the Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and the Head of Uniformed Services (whose combined total salaries of around £340,000 per annum plus benefits totalling another £60,000pa ) would not pass any known Value For Money test.

It should also be said that, in my extensive investigative experience, the PCC in North Yorkshire puts her unquestioning support of the police – and particularly Dave Jones – well ahead of any representation of the interests of the public. 

This Decision Notice will demonstrate that the PCC is holding the Chief Constable to account by monitoring the financial support of a specific case which is currently a matter of ongoing civil proceedings.

The one significant feature of the PCC’s tenure has been her complete failure to hold the Chief Constable to account. This was a key strand of argument from those opposing her in the PCC elections in May 2016, when Julia Mulligan was elected on a much reduced majority. The shambles surrounding this Decision Notice is a further example of that.

The PCC is satisfied that supporting the action by individuals is a lawful and proportionate use of public money and is in line with her priority of supporting victims and ensuring an efficient and effective police service. This Decision Notice will explain the scrutiny process.

In the Hofschröer case there has been one victim who stands out above all others: Disabled World War 2 veteran, Barbara Hofschröer, who was displaced from her home and now languishes in a council run care home, cut off from her chosen carer. Whilst no right thinking person could condone the appalling manner in which the campaign for justice for Grandma B (as Barbara is widely known) was run by her son and carer, Peter, at the heart of this issue is a grave miscarriage of justice.

In order to be as open and transparent as possible, the PCC publishes all Decision Notices so they are available to the press and the public.  This happens whenever a decision is in the public interest, of which there are several tests. In addition, the PCC expects the Chief Constable (CC) to draw to her attention issues which (amongst other things) are sensitive, contentious, novel or repercussive or where there is a real risk that the Commissioner or Chief Constable could be exposed to public criticism.

This Decision Notice was only published after considerable pressure was brought to bear by me, both via social media and a complaint to the Police Scrutiny Panel. Almost a full year after the PCC was legally obliged to do so.

In making this decision publicly and formally, through a published Decision Notice, the PCC will demonstrate that:

  • She is holding the Chief Constable to account by monitoring the financial support provided to a specific legal case, which is in the public interest

On any reasonable view it is difficult to see how the public interest is satisfied by granting huge benefits, by way of free legal fees, to very highly paid senior police officers over ‘hurt feelings’.

  • She is satisfied that supporting the action is a lawful and proportionate use of public money in line with her priority of supporting victims, and is in the best interests of the public purse

There are thousands of victims of serious crime in North Yorkshire who have received no financial support, whatsoever, from either the state in general, or North Yorkshire Police in particular. To allocate huge sums of money to alleged victims of harassment without violence is preposterous. Away from North Yorkshire, I draw the stark example of the families of the twenty-one victims of the Birmingham pub bombings who are desperately seeking public funding for legal representation at the new inquests. They have, so far, been refused legal aid and an appeal direct to the Home Secretary has been made. Perhaps they might get  more joy from Julia Mulligan?

She is upholding her commitment to being open and transparent.

The repeated use of the expression ‘open and transparent’ is troubling (they are underlined for emphasis). It has been proven beyond any doubt, whatsoever, that the PCC’s office is anything but. To the extent that Julia Mulligan is due to appear in Huddersfield County Court on 11th October, 2016 over her persistent breaches of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts. Much of the withheld information that forms the grounds for my claim concerns Operations Rome and Hyson.

1. Introduction and Background

Over the last seven years an individual has been involved in a complex family dispute.  Some of the allegations made have been investigated for possible criminal offences.  During the course of the investigation, members of the public and several professionals involved in the case, including former and serving police officers, have sustained alleged harassment.  The alleged harassment has included an amount of comment about their personal integrity and has been experienced through correspondence with the force and the Office of the PCC (OPCC), in formal complaints and on various social media outlets including websites and blogs.

The individual concerned was Peter Hofschröer. In an ‘open and transparent’ Decision Notice it seems odd that he has not been named. Six months after court proceedings were opened in a public hearing. Similarly, the websites referred to were Real Whitby and the North Yorks Enquirer. The blog in question was the previously mentioned Grandma B.

Criticism of North Yorkshire Police is of course accepted as fair comment and complaints are dealt with in accordance with procedures.  North Yorkshire Police strives to encourage engagement and debate with the public it serves, and in no way seeks to “close down” legitimate criticism that is helpful in improving the service response.  However, some of the comments have been so personal as to have affected the health of some of the recipients.  Police officers are used to dealing with difficult situations, they have broad shoulders and they are certainly not above criticism. 

There can be few, if any, other public bodies that are as sensitive to any criticism as North Yorkshire Police. It only encourages debate if they are able to control the agenda. Similarly, if the force is tackled on any area where their service falls below the required standard they are simply not interested in engaging with those who highlight shortcomings.

Similarly, the assertion that complaints about NYP officers are dealt with according to procedures is risible. A growing portfolio of cases to which I now have access has proved, beyond any doubt, that abuse of the complaints system by the force is on an industrial scale.

There has however been years of unwarranted harmful personal abuse that has tied up police time.  If the behaviour had been physical then there may have been a variety of different solutions to stop the behaviour and the Chief Constable has a statutory Duty of Care to look after the health and safety of his employees no matter how any distress is caused. Along with the health and safety of individuals, the effectiveness and efficiency of the police service is paramount and must be protected.  Over a considerable period of time the contact of individuals has impacted greatly on police resources in a way that is not sustainable.

The three officers concerned here are Chief Constable Jones, Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick and Chief Superintendent Lisa Winward (since promoted to Assistant Chief Constable). The harassment, according to the claim’s particulars and their own witness evidence, comprised of emails and articles on two websites. It is very doubtful that the two chief officers saw the emails and even more doubtful that they read the articles on what are two niche websites. Indeed, the pleadings made it clear that a lot of the ‘harassment’ complained of required a Google search by a team of expensive lawyers, working on their behalf, building a case.

The Chief Constable took the decision to proceed based on clear advice from a leading Barrister.  Based on that advice, the Chief Constable took the view that civil litigation was a necessary step to exercise his duty of care to members of his own organisation and to protect members of the public.

The leading barrister is Simon Myerson QC, who had also been advising on the spectacularly failed criminal investigation, Operation Rome. It is unclear why, in an ‘open and transparent’ Decision Notice why such a high profile lawyer would not be named. He had already appeared in court in the matter twice by the time the Decision Notice was published.

The decision by the Chief Constable to fund legal action to support individuals – both former and serving officers, and others connected with the case – attempting to prevent further alleged harassment was considered at great length.  Legal advice was proactively sought. 

Alongside that formal legal advice, both the PCC’s and Chief Constable’s Chief Finance Officers were consulted and provided their professional opinion.  Financial regulations were also checked. 

The External Auditors have also scrutinised the rationale and confirmed that North Yorkshire Police has the powers to undertake the actions that it has.

An employer has a statutory duty of care to the employees of the organisation.  Responsibilities include matters of health and safety and well-being.  Supporting this case seeks to addresses this.  Along with this duty on the employer there is a legal power and duty upon the PCC to maintain an efficient and effective police force for the area.  Supporting this action seeks to contribute to this in relation to the significant time and resource that has already been spent on this matter.

As is often the case in legal proceedings, most of the cost is frontloaded as evidence has had to be filed at the beginning.  This Decision Notice is being considered before the proceedings move towards any possible further hearings.

Two hearings had already taken place at Leeds High Court and a third hearing was already listed, before the Decision Notice was published. On 9th February, 2105; 25th June, 2015.  and 27th November, 2015 respectively

The position at this time is that the defendants can now decide whether to contest the case brought.  If they do so, a final hearing timetabled by the Judge would then be required.  It is of course hoped that a lengthy hearing can be avoided by the defendants agreeing to proposals made.

By the time the Decision Notice was issued it was clear that the two journalists were not going to go down without a fight and that a lengthy and costly legal battle was inevitable.

The final cost of the civil case will depend at what stage the case is finalised. Any early settlement will avoid a contested final hearing.  So far (to the date of this report), external legal advice and representation in the civil proceedings has cost £162,406. Most of the cost is frontloaded in this type of proceedings, as evidence has had to be filed at the beginning.

An estimate for the anticipated costs was made before the start of the proceedings and was estimated at around £202,000.  This is set against the cost of over £400,000 which the matter had already cost the force in dealing with the activities of those against whom the civil claim is made.  There was no apparent end to the case without positive action and other solutions had already been exhausted, which was a key factor in determining the course of action through the civil court.

It must have also been clear at that time that the estimate for the legal costs was going to be well in excess of the £202,000 estimate referred to in the Notice. The claim of £400,000 being the cost of dealing with the ‘activities’ of the defendants has been proved beyond any doubt to be far-fetched in a highly forensic article I wrote on the subject earlier this year. Read ‘409,970 reasons not to trust North Yorkshire Police’ [4].

In addition, the victims of the alleged harassment need to be able to seek relief from the alleged harassment they have felt and the PCC felt it appropriate to support them as victims in these proceedings.

A freedom of information request has been submitted to the PCC’s office to establish how money other victims of crime have been granted access to police funds to pursue civil claims.

2. Other Options Considered

It is for the Court to find, on consideration of evidence put before it, whether the issues and behaviour concerned have amounted to legal harassment of the individuals concerned. However, North Yorkshire Police felt obligated to take positive action to try to protect its staff.  Therefore it was decided to support the officers to commence civil proceedings as individuals.  In addition, as all solutions in the criminal arena had been exhausted for other claimants, a decision was taken to combine all actions of all individuals concerned from the start.  This was considered to be the most operationally and administratively effective solution saving both financially and court time (and therefore further public money) to combine all actions of the individuals concerned from the start.  It is hoped that the final outcome will reduce the distress felt by all those party to the action.

Citizen journalist Nigel Ward was included in the action despite none of the police officers (serving or retired) having any evidence against him, whatsoever. The Hofschröer family and their social worker had none either. That meant eight of the nine claimants had nothing against Mr Ward. Yet, the police officers held him in the claim until June, 2016 before discontinuing their claims and agreeing to pay Mr Ward’s costs. At the final hearing, Mr Ward was also awarded his costs against the ninth claimant, Jane Kenyon-Miller. This is likely to add over £100,000 to the police bill and raises huge public interest and misfeasance questions about the funding, by the police, of an action that, in the end, amounted to a wealthy public figure trying to crush a penniless pensioner into silence over her dodgy business dealings.

3. Contribution to Police and Crime Plan Priorities

The action supports the Policing Priorities in the Police and Crime Plan.

This statement is a nonsense. There is nothing at all in the Plan that supports senior police officers being granted huge sums of public money to pursue journalists over alleged harassment. Especially, after the CPS had twice ruled against the police on charging decisions over those same allegations.

4. Implementation and Resourcing Implications

The proceedings will continue in line with Directions made by the Court and regular meetings will be held to monitor progress and plan for different outcomes depending on any Orders or Judgment.

A freedom of information request has been made concerning the notes of those meetings. The decision to proceed to trial in a one versus one situation was very high risk for the police – and so it proved. The officers involved in that decision should be named and shamed.

5. Consultations Carried Out

Professional consideration and advice has been provided by: 

Department
Office of the PCC
Financial Services
Local Policing
Human Resources
Joint Corporate Legal Services
Corporate Communications

 5. Compliance Checks

Financial Implications/Value for money: 

Comments of the Commissioner’s Chief Finance Officer
Prior to any expenditure being undertaken on the work to support funding this case the PCC CFO and CC CFO were consulted and their authorisation sought to spend public money in the way proposed. As PCC CFO, and therefore advisor to the PCC on financial matters, it was my opinion at the time, and continues to be my opinion that the organisation has the ‘power’ to incur expenditure in this way based on 2 reasons from a financial perspective.

This is patently untrue. Work was in train on Hyson as soon as Rome ended in July, 2014. The earliest recorded discussions taking place over funding was three months later, in October 2014. There are also significant breaches that have been exposed, by freedom of information requests,  over procurement regulations in force. Solicitors and barristers were awarded contracts for over £200,000 without any tendering protocol being observed. Requests for sight of the Single Tender Access documents, upon which the police later relied as an explanation, have fallen on stony ground.

The first reason is that an employer has a statutory duty of care to their staff in matters of health and safety and well-being, which is something that supporting this case looked to address. The second reason is that the PCC has a legal power and duty to maintain an efficient and effective police force for the police area. Given the amount of time and resources that has been spent on this matter previously, an estimate of which is set out within this Decision Note, then to protect the effectiveness and efficiency of the Force and to enable scare resources to be directed to the most appropriate areas of policing then the power exists to spend the money in the way outlined within this Decision Note.

It has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that the figure of £400,000 relied upon for expenditure on Operation Rome – and used as justifaction for spending £200,000 on Hyson – was largely an invention.

As mentioned elsewhere, legal advice has been sought and received in relation to the power of the organisation to spend public money in this way which supports the views of the statutory officers employed by the PCC and CC. In addition to this the External Auditors for North Yorkshire Police and the PCC have looked separately into this matter, to satisfy themselves that the organisation had the power to spend the public’s money in this way. While their formal opinion has not been received on the 2014/15 Statement of Accounts it has been communicated that they are satisfied that the ‘powers’ that the organisation has relied upon to incur this expenditure are lawful.

The External Auditors, Mazars, were not even aware of Operation Hyson until I raised it with North Yorkshire Police during the public accounts access period in July, 2015. Exactly a year after the first invoice connected to Hyson was raised by Simon Myerson QC. Mazars have not produced any evidence of independent legal opinion concerning the lawful ‘powers’ of a chief constable authorising himself £50,000 of free legal fees.

Comments of the Chief Constable’s Chief Finance Officer
I am in full agreement with the remarks made by the Commissioners Chief Finance Officer. 

I have submitted a freedom of information request to North Yorkshire Police seeking all meeting, briefing notes, internal and external emails connected to the decision (and the rationale behind it) by the force (and the PCC) to fund the civil action.

Legal Implications:
External expert legal advice has been sought (which is legally privileged) and there has been significant consideration of the ‘vires’ (lawful power) to use public money to support the funding of this case.  The T/Force Solicitor and Head of Legal Services is satisfied that this report does not ask the PCC for North Yorkshire to make a decision which would (or would be likely to) give rise to a contravention of the law.

It has been proved conclusively, by me, that the PCC received no independent legal advice concerning ‘vires’ – and none was ever sought. At first, Force Solicitor, Jane Wintermeyer, falsely claimed to me, in writing, that legal opinion had been sought on 13th January, 2015. She later retreated from that position and said the opinion was given in conference with Simon Myerson QC on 15th October, 2014. Myerson has never been instucted by the PCC on this (or any other) issue – and neither has any other solicitor or barrister according to a freedom of information response.

Human Resources Implications:
Welfare provision has been considered throughout in relation to those directly affected, due to the duration of this case, ongoing assessments should continue as part of our duty of care as an employer.

No medical evidence was adduced at any stage in the claim to support the proposition that the three serving police officers have been affected in a way, beyond hurt feelings, that would justify the spending of public funds to the tune of £450,000.

Public Access to information
As a general principle, the Commissioner expects to be able to publish all decisions taken and all matters taken into account when reaching the decision.  This Notice will detail all information which the Commissioner will disclose into the public domain.  The decision and information will be made available on the Commissioner’s website.

This is patently untrue. This was a Decision Notice that should have been published in October, 2014 when the decision was allegedly made to dip into the public purse to fund this legal free-for-all. It was admitted to me, in writing, by the North Yorkshire Police Force Solicitor that there was no intention to publish a Decision Notice about this grotesque waste of public money without a formal complaint being made to the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel concerning its absence. The failure to publish placed the PCC in breach of The Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011.

In summary, it can now be seen that this Decision Note was a lame attempt to cover over a number of defects in due process and slack accounting procedures at the very least.

During my investigations into the Hyson case I have been variously and regularly been obstructed, lied to, smeared and even threatened with legal action by either the Force Solicitor, or those working on her behalf.

The Chief Financial Officer failed to comply with her disclosure obligations under the during the public accounts inspection in 2015.

The ‘open and transparent’ Police Commissioner consistently refused to answer questions over the funding – or even whether she had read the particulars of claim or statement of case – during proceedings by citing potential prejudice. Then, incredibly, airily dismissed fifteen public interest questions put to her in an open letter published on both this and the North Yorks Enquirer websites [5]. She went further and, incredibly, asked me not to repeat that costs had been awarded against Jane Kenyon-Miller and the other eight claimants. Nothwithstanding the fact that I was in court when the draft orders to that effect were agreed between counsel for the parties and nodded through by the presiding judge.

It is not known, as yet, whether, Mrs Mulligan and ‘Knacker’ as the satirical irreverently refer to her chief constable will be suing Private Eye over the article. Using public funds, of course.

This is a story that still has some way to run and if those officials, elected or employed, who have treated both the public and the law with utter contempt may well find that their seeming sense of invincibility will be shattered in a way they might not have considered possible. A study of section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 might well be prescriptive.

 

Annotations

[1] Private Eye, August 2016: ‘Police 5 – North Yorkshire Boors’.

[2] York Press, 11th July, 2016: ‘Historian who had 36,000 indecent images gets two and a half years’

[3] North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, 29th September, 2015: ‘Decision Notice 011/2015 – Formal support and explanation from the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding funding of ongoing civil litigation action (sic) to protect officers and members of the public against alleged personal harassment’.

[4] Neil Wilby, 20th March, 2016: ‘409,970 reasons not to trust North Yorkshire Police’

[5] Neil Wilby, 29th July, 2016: ‘Open letter to Julia Mulligan’

Page last updated on Monday 5th September, 2016 at 0845hrs

© Neil Wilby 2015-2016. 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 Old Pals Act, 2016

There can be few more frustrating exercises for a journalist than trying to elicit straight answers from police forces. Legions of press officers are, mostly, conditioned to stonewall newshounds in search of the truth behind a story.

Too often they are briefed by senior officers to provide obfuscating, misleading or, on more rare occasions, untruthful answers to the media. The latter invariably to either avoid, or at least minimise, reputational damage to the force or wider police service.

So, the opportunity to ask direct questions of chief officers in open forum is a vanishingly rare one in the post-Leveson era, and is not one that should be passed up lightly.

Every month or so, North Yorkshire Police and its Police and Crime Commissioner hold a meeting of senior warranted and civilian officers which goes by the grand title of Corporate Performance, Delivery and Scrutiny Board. It is live podcasted, and even has a Twitter hashtag, #NYPScrutiny.

Except that virtually no-one watches the podcast. Either live, or by way of catch-up on YouTube, and there is little, or no, public interaction on social media about the Scrutiny Board.

Those that have watched the podcast probably wouldn’t repeat the exercise, as it is a complete waste of time as far as scrutiny goes – there is none – and the self-indulgent backslapping over performance and delivery, by those officers present around the meeting table, verges on nauseating.

Indeed, it is true to say that the exercise may now be all a tad too tedious, even for Chief Constable Dave Jones and PCC Julia Mulligan, as the former has been absent on holiday for the last two meetings (he also missed the previous three whilst away on secondment) and Julia has also missed two of the last three meetings. The latest because she was also on annual leave, we are told.

As part of the theatre of the occasion and, they say, in the interests of ‘transparency’, the Scrutiny Board invite public questions. These can be emailed in beforehand, or tweeted using the #NYPScrutiny hashtag whilst the meeting is in session.

As yet, they have not excluded journalists from the process so I have availed myself of the opportunity several times in the past. Indeed, it is rare for anyone other than myself, or uPSDNYP, to ask a question.

Just before the most recent Board meeting, I was contacted by a complainant for whom I have advocated informally for almost four years. She is a rape and fraud victim – and there are long standing issues with both NYP and their big city cousins, West Yorkshire Police over failures to successfully prosecute the perpetrator.

She told me that her two most recent conversations with a senior officer in NYP’s professional standards unit, Detective Chief Inspector Steve Fincham, had resulted in him losing his temper on both occasions including, in one of them, slamming the phone down.

Mr Fincham is an officer about whom I already know a great deal. He has dealt with a large number of complaints with which I have been directly, or indirectly, involved. Apart from an increasing portfolio of case files, I also hold a significant amount of credible, anecdotal evidence concerning the way this particular officer approaches his professional standards role. The criticism is not all from the public making complaints, either. There has also concern amongst serving officers about his uncultured, bullying approach to the job.

A decision was quickly reached between the rape victim and myself that a public question to the Scrutiny Board about DCI Fincham’s conduct might be more prescriptive than a formal incivility complaint against an officer who has delegated Appropriate Authority powers from the Chief Constable under the Police Reform Act. How prescient that turned out to be.

This is the question, faithfully reproduced in picture form, on screen, during the section of the meeting devoted to public questions:

Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 11.10.22

What was not reproduced, specifically at my request, was background material given to the Police Commissioner’s office that was relevant to the question.

– That I have acted informally for the past four years for the complainant. We meet regularly, speak often on the telephone and share documents – and confirmation that I am strongly committed to doing everything in my power to see that she secures justice.

– It was asserted on her behalf that officers at managerial rank who cannot maintain self-control should not have public facing roles.
– It was also pointed out that, like me, the complainant is astounded at the lack of knowledge of due process that DCI Fincham appears to exhibit at almost every contact. That is much more concerning to both of us than inappropriate behaviour on the telephone.
– Finally, it was drawn to the attention of those present at the meeting that the rape victim will not be complaining to the force formally about DCI Fincham’s conduct because again, like me, she feels there is absolutely no point. He is, seemingly, protected by the Command Team and is likely to remain so. Also, like me, she has also much more important issues to address with NYP.
From the response given in this short excerpt from the podcast it is clear that Deputy Chief Constable Timothy Madgwick had read the email. He claims, as you will hear, that DCI Fincham is not protected by senior officers:
What has happened since that Board meeting ended has played out rather differently to what the rape victim, myself and now, it seems, the wider public on social media might have expected.
The day after the Board meeting I contacted the Police Commissioner’s office by email and this was the final paragraph of that message:
In the meantime, we will await the formal response to yesterday’s public question. If DCC Madgwick requires witness accounts from other members of the public with whom DCI Fincham has interacted, please do let me know. That may give enquiries into the matter a much more solid evidential base. 
An answer was provided swifly by the Commissioner’s office, but it was unexpected to say the least: I don’t think there is an intention for a further response to be sent to you.  The matter was raised and responded to (in the meeting).
Further exchanges have taken place with NYPCC, conducted in the familiar cordial manner, to the effect that if DCC Madgwick is not minded to investigate or respond to either myself, or the rape victim, then a more detailed complaint will be submitted via the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Supported by at least four witness accounts previously referred to.
Which, on any independent view, would place a further burden on the police complaints system which is already overloaded and beset by lengthy delays. So, why doesn’t DCC Madgwick, who ran the force’s professional standards unit in 2003 to 2004, just answer the question, ‘look into it‘ as he says on the video clip and tell those affected by Fincham’s behaviour, and the wider public, exactly what he has found and if he has disciplined the errant officer? Is that really so difficult to do?
Well, it seems the reluctance of Mr Madgwick to investigate the matter, and censure DCI Fincham, might be found in a senational development two days beyond the Scrutiny Board meeting. In a letter to Tim Thorne, the owner of the North Yorks Enquirer internet news magazine it turns out that – wait for it – DCI Fincham is to ‘investigate’ DCC Madgwick over a complaint made about him by Mr Thorne in June, 2016.
You couldn’t make it up, except this is the Alice Through The Looking Glass world of North Yorkshire Police where everything is ‘amazing’, ‘fantastic’ or ‘great’ and no-one in #TeamNYP (another Twitter hashtag) can possibly be the subject of criticism, let alone found out over wrongdoing.
BBC Inside Out corruption busters pic
Mr Thorne’s complaint concerned false evidence that DCC Madgwick had made in a witness statement in the well-chronicled Operation Hyson investigation, wherein it was claimed that ‘Tim Thorne’ was an alias used by Luxembourg-based chartered accountant, Tim Hicks. Madgwick had failed to correct the false assertion when first challenged by rebuttal evidence in October, 2015 and more publicly by me on Twitter in May, 2016 (see above picture).
Given that the complaint is now approaching three months old and is already non-compliant in a number of areas (failure to provide updates, wrong correspondence address used, wrong type of investigation ordered, officer of insufficient rank or hierarchal independence appointed to deal with the complaint) DCC Madgwick is hardly rushing to correct the mistake and front up with a public apology.
_65102059_65101757
DCC Madgwick (pictured above) is also the subject of another police complaint concerning a further alleged falsehood in that same witness statement. That issue is presently in the hands of the IPCC, by way of an appeal against a decision not to record the complaint by – you may have guessed it – DCI Fincham. A third complaint against Madgwick also rests with the IPCC over allegations connected with alleged attempts to criminalise me by way of contempt in the Hyson court proceedings. Fincham also refused to record this complaint.
This is another classic case of the police, and a compliant Police and Crime Commissioner, managing to make any complaint situation, however straightforward, into a publicity disaster.  The story will run and run for some time yet. Particularly, as Fincham, just three days after the Scrutiny Board meeting, flew off the handle yet again and put the phone down on a vulnerable and intimidated female for a third time. He lost his temper, yet again, when he was asked politely to behave properly and, particularly, as the complainant made Fincham aware of her having viewed the podcast. This was the tipping point, it seems, for PSD’s errant ‘golden boy’.
Both the North Yorkshire Police press office and the Police Commissioner’s office have been approached for comment but have yet to respond. These are the questions put to both:
1. The appropriateness of officers each investigating the other, over public complaints, at one and the same time.
2. The persistent and flagrant disposal of complaint issues by NYP/NYPCC outside the appropriate legislative framework.
3. The suitability of police officers at managerial rank, who exhibit repeated failures of self-control, to hold public facing roles.
The silence is, so far, deafening. As it is from DCC Madgwick, who has so far refused to respond to these matters put to him via Twitter:
Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 08.37.27
Four days after this article was re-published on the North Yorks Enquirer news website, a member of the public came forward to give his own views on the PSD officer at the centre of this storm. Nigel Rush from Tadcaster, in a letter to the editor of the NYE, describes detective, Steve Fincham, variously as “aggressive, “boastful” and “frightening”. Mr Rush’s phone call with Fincham also ended with the phone being slammed down on him. He is, however, at pains to point out that interaction with other NYP officers was of a much more pleasant and professional tenor. I have heard another family group of complainants against NYP – all highly respectable people – use almost identical words when describing Fincham. Except that they have met him, as opposed to speaking on the telephone. Another complainant, whose lawyers are presently prosecuting a civil claim against North Yorkshire Police on his behalf, says: “I found him (Fincham) totally untrustworthy and full of artifice. He turned my complaint against an officer who had assaulted me on its head”.
On the very same day, well known governance campaigner, Gwen Swinburn, who mainly – and successfully – holds City of York Council to account, stepped into the ‘NYP let’s investigate each other’ debate on Twitter. Gwen asked Julia Mulligan if she could intervene in what she felt was a situation that was an affront to democracy whereby police officers could investigate each other at one and and the same time.
Despite the snub to a request for comment on this article, the NYPCC twitter account jumped in on Gwen’s tweet and answered on Julia’s behalf by saying they would ‘look into’ the situation. Quite what that amounts to is unclear, given that both the creation and the escalation of this bizarre situation is all down to the Commissioner’s office.
Screen Shot 2016-08-30 at 15.53.39
The fact that the ‘look into’ promise is exactly the same as used by DCC Madgwick at the Scrutiny Board meeting might be seen by some as ominous.With exactly the same outcome?

Page last updated: Friday 2nd September, 2016 at 1445hrs

© Neil Wilby 2015-2016. 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.