Police anonymity argument set for Supreme Court

At a pre-inquest hearing on 19th February, 2021 it was revealed that a coroner’s ruling made in June, 2019 is now the subject of an appeal to the highest court in the land. It touches the death of a black man from Huddersfield, a large Pennine town in West Yorkshire. Andrew Stephen Hall was 43 years old when he died in the Royal Infirmary after an incident in the custody area of the local police station.

The hotly contested issue, a huge drain on public funds, is one of anonymity for the sixteen police officers who will give evidence at the inquest to be held in Bradford Crown Court. The ten week hearing is presently listed to open on 21st April, 2021 before Assistant Coroner for West Yorkshire (Western Area), Oliver Longstaff.

The matter of the use of screens to preserve anonymity has already been fully ventilated in the Administrative Division of the High Court in Leeds, in October 2019, before Mrs Justice Jefford, and then at the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal in London almost a year to the day later (read full history here).

Unusually, the three law lords were split on the appeal. Lord Justices Flaux and Lewison in favour of overturning the decision of the lower court. Lord Justice Males giving a dissenting judgment. It is assumed that the latter has given impetus to the Hall family’s challenge.

The pre-inquest heard that the delay in filing the detailed grounds supporting the appeal with the Supreme Court, made in timely fashion after the Court of Appeal hearing, was entirely due to delays in obtaining approval for funding from the Legal Aid Agency. The green light was given on or around 12th February. The Hall family is fronted, for legal purposes, by Andrew’s partner, Natalie Dyer, and her legal team is led by Leslie Thomas QC.

In the light of the impending Supreme Court appeal, Mr Thomas QC had made an application to the coroner to vacate the hearing in April, in view of the uncertainty of the appeal outcome and the impact it would have on preparation by the large number of legal teams involved in the process. He was, however, mindful of the impact that any further delay would have on other interested parties and those due to give evidence.

After hearing lengthy submissions on behalf of a large number of interested parties, and his own counsel, Marc Willems QC, the coroner ruled that a decision did not need to be made immediately. Several representatives, notably Brian Dean of behalf of the Police Federation of England and Wales, were already in contact with the Registrar’s office at the Supreme Court, regarding the urgent nature of the appeal and the prospects of permission being granted, or otherwise, before the end of March, 2021. At which time a more informed decision regarding the start date of the ten week inquest, presently listed for 21st April, 2021, could be made.

Mr Dean very helpfully took the coroner through the various Court Rules and Practice Directions and pointed out that, even with everyone working expeditiously towards a resolution of the permission appeal, a strict reading of the timetable meant that it was perfectly possible that the decision would not come in time.

The submission of Hugh Davies QC, on behalf of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, that the inquest hearing opened in April and would be adjourned if the permission appeal was successful, did not find favour with either Mr Willems QC or the coroner himself. The latter expressed particular concern over the impact that a delay of some months, in those circumstances, could have on the jury.

Various estimates were advanced as to when and where a re-listed inquest might be accommodated, bearing in mind a large, ‘special measures’ courtroom (or courtrooms) is a specific requirement. They ranged from eighteen months to two years. The coroner pointed out that, even in the pre-virus epidemic era, there was a gap between the previous date vacated in November 2019 to the present listed date of 17 months.

A planned visit by the coroner and the interested parties to Bradford Crown Court is set to go ahead on 3rd March, 2021. Court staff are limiting the numbers attending on that day due to the virus epidemic. Arrangements regarding the positioning of TV screens, witness box screening and entry to/exit from the court in order to preserve anonymity of police witnesses will be amongst the topics discussed. Mr Willems QC told the hearing that a risk assessment had already been carried out by Crown Court staff, or those acting for them in that connection. Partitions between jurors and between counsel are already in place.

Mr Longstaff wen on to say that West Yorkshire Police had kindly offered to prepare the inquest hearing bundle which runs to over 6,000 pages. It will be distributed electronically in ‘pdf’ form. This represented a considerable saving to the coroner’s team, and their host authority City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, both in terms of outsourcing cost and saved hours internally.

Some of those savings look as though they will be re-invested by the Council in making a rolling transcript of the proceedings available throughout the inquest hearing. Mr Willems QC noted that such a resource would be particularly useful to the coroner when summing up and, most particularly, the jury in their fact finding role. (Also, it must be said, very useful to members of the press).

Amongst five witnesses who had sought excuse from attendance at the inquest hearing was Christopher Hodgson of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The IOPC had queried whether his evidence was necessary and, if so, could his statement be read to the jury.

By an extraordinary coincidence, the IOPC released an important statement concerning the findings of its investigation into the controversial death of another Huddersfield man, Yassar Yaqub, on the very same day as the pre-inquest hearing (read more here). The much delayed inquest touching that death, which followed a ‘hard stop’ shooting by police marksmen, is set to be heard in January, 2022.

Page last updated: Sunday 21st February, 2020 at 0835 hours

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

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

Picture Credit:

This article contains public sector information licensed under Open Government Licence v3.0 (read more here).

© Neil Wilby 2015-2021. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Watchdog clears police over M62 shooting

An investigation by the police watchdog into the shooting of a 28 year old Huddersfield man, after a hard stop on the M62 slip road at Ainley Top in January, 2017, has decided that no West Yorkshire Police officer committed a criminal offence or breached professional standards (writes Neil Wilby). 

Yassar Yaqub was a passenger in an Audi saloon car. It was returning to the Huddersfield area from a meeting at Cafe de Akbar in Bradford. His family believe he was ‘set up’ by a notorious police informant whom he had met shortly before he was killed.

At Leeds Crown Court, during the trial of the driver of the Audi car, Moshin Amin, it was heard that a microphone had been concealed in the ceiling at the restaurant, by police, who then followed the car through the city and out onto the motorway network. Amin hotly disputed that a hand gun was in the vehicle but the jury found him guilty of conspiring to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life. 

He also says no warning was given before three shots were fired into the Audi by a police marksman (codename Victor 39) from the passenger seat of an unmarked Mercedes Benz car. Amin’s testimony was, also, that Yasser was unarmed and on his mobile phone to a man who owed him money over the sale of a car when he was shot. The trial judge, Mr Justice Turner, during sentencing said that the evidence about the dispute being over a car, rather than drugs, was ‘implausible’.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said yesterday that its final report into the incident will not be published until after an inquest which is scheduled for January 2022.

Steve Noonan, the IOPC’s Director of Major Investigations, said: “Our investigation into the death of Yassar Yaqub concluded in 2019.

“Our detailed final report has been shared with West Yorkshire Police and the office of Her Majesty’s Coroner. 

“The outcome of our investigation has been shared with Mr Yaqub’s family and interested parties, while recommendations for learning have also been published on our website.

“A copy of our final report has recently been shared with Mr Yaqub’s family and interested parties.

“Our investigation was comprehensive and detailed.

“Police were treated as witnesses throughout the investigation and the report did not indicate that any officer may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.

“Due to the investigation’s complexity, as well as a parallel criminal investigation and subsequent trial in late 2018 which restricted our access to a number of key witnesses, there was an inevitable impact on when we could finalise our investigation. We recognise that this will have affected Mr Yaqub’s family.

“It would not be appropriate for the IOPC to publish a report or provide further information until the inquest is concluded.

“As always, our thoughts remain with all those affected by Mr Yaqub’s death.”

The investigation was led by one of its former Commissioners, Derrick Campbell, about whom the Yaqub family and their legal team are fiercely critical.

Michael Mansfield QC, the barrister acting for Yaqub’s family, is understood to have told IPCC investigators at a meeting in April 2017 that their approach was reminiscent of “the bad old days” when families were treated with “utter contempt by the police and those charged with investigating police misconduct”.

“The IPCC panel was not fit for purpose – that’s what they’ve shown,” said Mohammed Yaqub. “They tried to tell me certain things that were incorrect. They didn’t have their files with them [at the meeting]. I was very, very, very shocked.”

The disgraced watchdog was forced to change its name to the IOPC a year to the day after Yassar was shot. The IPCC brand had become too toxic after a lengthy catalogue of high profile failures almost from the day of its inception in April, 2004. It replaced the equally troubled Police Complaints Authority.

Mr Yaqub, a successful and well known local businessman, who is adamant that his son was shot unlawfully, has been approached for further comment. Mr Yaqub is a prominent member of the United Friends and Family Campaign (UFFC) which is a coalition of those affected by deaths in police, prison and psychiatric custody, supports others in similar situations. Their present number totals around 1,700.

The press office at West Yorkshire Police has also been asked for a statement. It is understood that the force has applied for anonymity for its officers at the forthcoming inquest. Important case law on the controversial topic, particularly in relation to the death following police custody of another Huddersfield man, Andrew Stephen Hall, is covered in great detail elsewhere on this website (read more here).

Page last updated: Saturday 20th February, 2020 at 0805 hours

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

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

Picture Credit: Christopher Furlong/Getty

This article contains public sector information licensed under Open Government Licence v3.0 (read more here).

© Neil Wilby 2015-2021. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Inquest delayed over police anonymity arguments

Andrew Stephen Hall, a black man from Huddersfield, died in the town’s Royal Infirmary on 13th September, 2016. He was 43 years old and his admission to hospital followed an episode in West Yorkshire Police (WYP) custody at the local police station and an earlier visit to the Accident and Emergency Department (A & E) of the same hospital.

From documents filed at the High Court, these are the circumstances noted in submissions and are not the subject of factual dispute by any party to those proceedings:

In the early hours of the same day, Mr Hall was found collapsed at home by his partner, Natalie Dyer. He had taken prescription medication and drunk alcohol. When paramedics attended, he was unresponsive and was taken to A & E where he received further medication and his condition appeared to improve.

He became agitated, however, and was alleged to have slapped a nurse. Ms Dyer says in a witness statement that this occurred because he was disorientated, frustrated and panicking. As a result of the incident, he was removed from the hospital to the nearby police station in the town centre, arriving at about 7.30 am.

At 8.35 am, Mr Hall was taken to a custody area and his handcuffs were removed. He told officers that he was feeling unwell and was going to be sick. He was taken to a cell where he could vomit. He was assessed by a male custody nurse at around 10am and, thereafter, taken back towards the cell by three officers. In transit, he freed one of his arms and grabbed a barred gate. During the ensuing struggle, at least one of the officers struck Mr Hall multiple times. He may have struck back. By 10.18 am the officers had restrained him and returned him to his cell. The custody nurse observed the later stages of what happened to Mr Hall during the altercation and he was of the view that he needed to be taken back to hospital.

Paramedics attended the police station at 10.42 am and Mr Hall was returned to hospital in handcuffs and leg restraints. He was sedated, medicated and arrangements were made for him to have a computerised tomography (CT) scan. Whilst waiting for this procedure his condition deteriorated and clinical staff could not feel a pulse. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (commonly termed as CPR) was performed, but he was declared dead at 12.44 pm.

Andrew’s death, therefore, occurred shortly after he had been in police custody and restrained. Because of the prevalence of such incidents across the wider police service, dating back many years, there is significant public interest in an inquest into the death of a black man in these circumstances. The recent surge of interest in the Black Lives Matter campaign is ample demonstration of that.

Sixteen police officers are expected give evidence at the delayed inquest to be held later this year. Anonymity was originally sought for fifteen of them, a number reduced to thirteen by the time the matter reached the appeal court.

Applications for anonymity

In March 2019, the WYP chief constable made an application to Her Majesty’s Coroner for West Yorkshire (Western) for anonymity for three of his officers and, also, for them to give evidence from behind screens. The ranks of those officers are, as yet, undisclosed.

A similar application followed from the Police Federation, on behalf of twelve of their members (officers holding the rank of constable up to chief inspector).

The application for anonymity was not contested by Mr Hall’s family and an Order was made, by the coroner, Oliver Longstaff, together with Orders that the CCTV footage featuring the officers will be modified so their names cannot be heard and their faces will be pixelated. The coroner, jury and legal representatives of the family will have access to unedited copies of the CCTV.

The applications for police officer evidence to be given from behind screens were, however, resisted by Andrew Hall’s family. The coroner heard these applications on 6th June 2019. He had two statements from WYP’s Inspector Danny Rotchell, together with his risk assessment; open statements from three officers and closed statements from other officers. The applications were grounded on the premise that if officers were seen, they might be identified and if so, they might be identified either by, or to, Andrew Hall’s brother, Qassim. He has a lengthy criminal record, is well known to the police in Huddersfield and records show that he has a history of making threats.

Qassim Hall was not one of the family members involved in the applications before the coroner, the subsequent judicial review and the consequent appeal to the Court of Appeal. He has not, so far, attended any of the hearings.

The named claimant (or respondent) in those proceedings is Andrew Hall’s partner (and the mother of one of his children). She was, in effect, acting with, and on behalf of, six other members of his family including his mother (Pamela Hall), father (Franklyn Lindor), three siblings (Tracey Nash, Daniel Priestley and Bianca Priestley) and an adult son (Joseph Hall), collectively referred to by the various courts as ‘the family’.

The coroner’s ruling

The coroner ruled, in the event, that the police officers giving evidence would be screened from the public (including accredited members of the press) and the family, but be fully visible to himself, the jury and the legal representatives of all the interested parties.

He stated that the wealth of competing legal authorities presented to him by counsel for all those parties demonstrated that, first and foremost, applications of this nature are ‘immensely fact-sensitive’.

Instinctively, the coroner said, the proposition that the family of the deceased who has died in circumstances that call into question the State’s discharge of its obligations under Article 2 of the European Conventions on Human Rights [ECHR], should not see the agents of the state implicated in that death ‘offends what can be appropriately described as natural justice, in the sense of the fair and impartial application of law and procedure to all parties to a particular legal process.’

‘That instinct was all the stronger where the application was not based on any sufficient evidence or intelligence reflecting adversely on the family members most likely to be affected,’ adding that there was no basis upon which the Rule 18 power (under the Coroners (Inquests) Rules, 2013) could be exercised other than in respect of the perceived danger said to be posed to officers by Qassim Hall.

The coroner found that proposition credible, referring to Hall’s convictions for violence and history of making threats, including to kill. He accepted that Qassim blamed the police for Andrew Hall’s death and that the police officers had a genuine fear that if identified it would create a risk of harm to them, or their families, from the actions of Qassim Hall. He further accepted that in the case of some of the officers, these fears were affecting their health, and will continue to do so, unless steps are taken to minimise the risk. Hugh Davies QC and Brian Dean, of counsel, had both submitted, in terms, on behalf of the chief constable and Police Federation respectively, that the officers’ fears were not irrational but could be characterised as subjective fears that were objectively justified.

The coroner accepted the submission of Leslie Thomas QC, on behalf of the family, as to the presumption that evidence would not be given from behind a screen and said that Coroner’s Rules permits a departure from that presumption if he determined that the use of screens was likely to improve the quality of the evidence of the officers, or allow the inquest to ‘proceed more expeditiously’. (The sharp-eyed may have noted that the Rule, as drafted, refers to expedience not expedition).

He went on to conclude that permitting the officers to give evidence from behind a screen would be likely to improve the quality of their evidence overall. Witnesses who are fearful for their safety, or the safety of their families, in the event that they are identified, were more likely to be straightforward and forthcoming in their evidence if confident they will not be identified. He had considered whether the use of screens would impede the questioning of any witness and concluded that the retention by the family of a leading QC obviated the risk of any such impediment.

The coroner emphasised that his starting point was the interests of justice, generally, and of anyone concerned in the legal process ‘are best served when those charged with making findings of fact, and reaching conclusions based upon those findings, are able to do so on the basis of the best evidence’ and that, in this case, the best evidence will be given if the police officers give evidence from behind screens.

He confirmed that his decision cast no doubt, or aspersion at all, on the good character of the bereaved family, but his decision was based upon what he perceived as the genuine risk posed by Qassim Hall to the officers and their families.

Delay to inquest

The inquest touching the death of Andrew Hall was listed to commence on 4th November, 2019 at Bradford Law Courts.

That date was vacated as a result of the extant legal proceedings challenging the coroner’s decision and, subsequently, the decision of the High Court in respect of that ruling.

It will now be heard in April 2021, if and when the effects of the virus crisis are mitigated. Multi-handed hearings, before a jury and with large numbers of court staff, lawyers, security, witnesses, reporters and public to be accommodated, pose their own set of problems.

The next hearing will take place on 19th February, 2021. It is listed as a pre-inquest review before Mr Longstaff. Presumably, one of the issues to be resolved is a date for the final hearing of the inquest.

The judicial review application by the Hall family

On 11th October, 2019, Mrs Justice Jefford sitting in the Administrative Court in Leeds heard an application from Mr Hall’s family opposing the coroner’s directions in relation to the screens.

It is worth setting out the grounds in full as they articulate some of the recurring concerns of bereaved families, across a broader portfolio of deaths following police contact, particularly as anonymity orders and screening of police officer witnesses is now an increasing trend:

Ground 1: “The coroner misdirected himself, in that he failed to recognise (i) the fundamental importance of open justice and to give it great weight; (ii) the particular importance of open justice in this inquest, as it involves a controversial death in police custody of a black man following police restraint; (iii) that his decision interfered with the rights of the press within Article 10 of ECHR; (iv) that screening is only permitted in exceptional circumstances; and (v) that in this context screening, particularly screening of all factual police witnesses, is a serious incursion into open justice.”
Ground 2: “The decision to screen the 16 officers from the family and public was a greater intrusion into open justice than was strictly necessary. It follows from the coroner’s ruling that here was no rational basis for screening the witnesses from anyone other than Qassim Hall. There was a less intrusive means of achieving the aim pursued, which was to screen the witnesses from him alone.”
Ground 4: “The coroner proceeded on the basis that screening is permitted if that would improve the quality of evidence, and thereby misdirected himself.”
Ground 5: “The decision was not compatible with the procedural duty within Article 2 ECHR; was not correct as a matter of common law; or alternatively was disproportionate.”

The family was refused permission to apply for judicial review on ground 3 and, as such, it does not appear in the list above. HHJ Philip Kramer, sitting as a judge of the High Court, granted permission in respect of grounds 1,2,4 and 5.

As the hearing unfolded, grounds 1 and 4 were argued together, and the judge said it was first necessary to address the legal framework. There was no dispute that the principle of open justice is a fundamental tenet of common law, as applicable in a coroner’s court as in any other court, citing, inter alia, R (T) v West Yorkshire Senior Coroner [2017] EWCA Civ 318[2018] 2 WLR 211.

She then set out the different facets of the principle, including the ability of those present in court to see and hear the evidence being given. She stated that she did not consider it particularly helpful to frame any incursion into the principle of open justice as only allowed in exceptional circumstances. Her analysis was that: “where there is a balancing exercise to be undertaken, particular weight is to be attached to this fundamental principle and one of the consequences of attaching particular weight to that consideration is that the incursion into openness should be no more than necessary.”

The judge set out the four reasons advanced on behalf of the Hall family as to why the use of screens was a significant incursion into open justice: “(i) it undermines the effectiveness of the investigation because the public would not be prompted to bring forward further evidence; (ii) the observing of the witnesses is an important part of the investigative process (not limited to the process undertaken by the decision makers); (iii) preventing the witnesses being seen undermines public confidence in the process; (iv) not being able to see the witnesses reduces the prospect of catharsis for the family of the deceased.” She noted that no further reliance was placed on the first point but the family continued to rely on the remainder.

She further noted that being able to see a witness give evidence is an important factor in assessing demeanour and credibility. She said that, nonetheless, screening was common in criminal trials because the courts had recognised both the needs of vulnerable witnesses and innocent bystanders giving evidence in difficult circumstances – and the consequent benefit to the quality of their evidence from being made comfortable. This was not seen as undermining public confidence in the system of justice or the openness of the process. However, she added that the position being argued here was significantly different. In the case of an inquest such as this, the public interest in seeing the police officers, however they may have been involved in the events leading to the death of Mr Hall, was of a different nature and measure from the public interest in seeing a vulnerable complainant or witness give evidence – and the risk of undermining public confidence all the more obvious. She referred to the submission of Adam Straw on behalf of the Hall family that there must be such an overarching consideration because of the fundamental importance of the principle of open justice. She also noted his submission that, by following the Rules, the coroner had failed to weigh in the balance the fundamental importance of open justice.

The judge then set out why she considered it was right that the principle of open justice must always have a place in the decision making process and be given appropriate weight in the balancing exercise between potential benefits and detriments of screens and went on to say that it by no means followed that the coroner had misdirected himself in law, for two reasons she identified: Firstly, she noted the opposing arguments had been fully ventilated at the hearing, before the coroner, so it could not be said that Mr Longstaff was not aware of the matters the Hall family averred should be taken into account. Secondly, the coroner’s decision had to be read “with a degree of benevolence or pragmatism” and that the coroner must be taken to have in mind all of the arguments made by counsel, even if he did not set out each of them in detail. If he took account of the relevant factors, he could not be said to have misdirected himself in law, even if he did not articulate the legal principles in the way counsel for the Hall family would have formulated them.

In her judgment, she took the view that the coroner was entirely correct in saying the police application for screening was based upon the fears that Qassim Hall would seek to harm them and found that threat credible and the fears genuine.

She recorded the family’s view that what the coroner did was set out the competing submissions but did not then evaluate the comparative importance of the various factors or weigh them against each other. That is to say: Quality of the evidence weighed in the balance with the interests of open justice.

The judge found that his references to ‘the principles of natural justice’ were clearly in context references to ‘the principles of open justice’ and said, further, that the coroner had made clear his instinctive difficulty or discomfort with the proposition that the family would not see the witnesses implicated in Andrew Hall’s death if their evidence was given from behind screens. It was also found that the ruling in which the coroner considers all the circumstances of the case, may well be read as having inherent in it a balancing exercise in which the principle of open justice played a part.

The judge concluded in relation to grounds 1 and 4 that the coroner did misdirect himself in law and the challenge on the basis of ground 1 succeeded. The family’s position was, in those circumstances, that the judge should make her own decision about the use of screens if she considered there was only one possible outcome, but she could remit the matter back to the coroner if she thought there was a range of possible outcomes. She noted that there was no real dispute that, from the police perspective, it was the appropriate course. To deal with this issue, she considered it easiest to address what her decision would have been on grounds 2 and 5 had she not concluded that the coroner had misdirected himself.

Ground 2 involved a Wednesbury irrationality challenge, that even if the coroner did not misdirect himself, his decision was irrational essentially on the basis that less intrusive measures could have been directed, such as directions to screen the officers from Qassim Hall only, or to restrict his entry to the courtroom. It was said by the Hall family that, even if screens to protect the officers from the view of the general public was rational, it was irrational to direct screens that prevented the family members from seeing the officers give evidence.

Ground 5 was argued with ground 2 because it was similar. It was contended that the decision was neither compliant with the common law duty of fairness nor with the ECHR Article 2 procedural duty. Both grounds raising the same broad argument that the coroner’s direction was a disproportionate measure. Article 2 procedural duty requires that there be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation to secure accountability, maintain public confidence and prevent any appearance of collusion or tolerance of unlawful acts: The family must be able to participate effectively in the inquest. The judge recognised that this did not extend to the family having a right to cross-examine, or it would seem, a right to observe witnesses giving evidence, but the interest in doing so remains a factor to be taken into account.

The judge said that it was common ground that the decision as to compliance with the common law duty of fairness and/or proportionality was one for the court rather than an irrationality challenge. She said that if she considered the use of screens irrational, it would follow that she would conclude that it was not in accordance with common law principles and was a disproportionate incursion into the Article 2 procedural duty. In each instance, it was open to her to substitute her own decision, which she understood to be common ground.

The judge then set out details of Qassim Hall’s lengthy criminal record and history of making threats. It is not necessary to set out the detail of those findings, as none of the parties has sought to challenge the coroner’s finding that the threat from Qassim Hall was credible and the officers’ fears of being identified by him genuine.

Other than an alleged incident, the day after he had been told of his brother’s death, when Qassim Hall is said to have attempted to climb over the gates of Huddersfield police station (of which incident the police had no record) there was no further evidence that, in the three years since Mr Hall’s death, Qassim Hall had taken any steps to identify or threaten any of the officers. Before the coroner Hugh Davies QC, on behalf of West Yorkshire’s chief constable, had made very clear that none of the other Hall family members represented a threat to the officers or would, themselves, breach the anonymity order. What was contended was that the family members were vulnerable to forced extraction of the identity of the officers. Set against this is the fact of the family already knowing the identity of two of the officers and there was no suggestion they had disclosed that information to Qassim Hall.

The judge referred to the fact that Qassim Hall was not estranged from his family and to two incidents, one in which his mother was charged with violent disorder in 2005, whilst attempting to prevent his arrest and another when she was arrested but not charged when Qassim and his partner were under investigation for harassment. The judge described these as: “the high point of the evidence that a named family member might become engaged with Qassim Hall, out of a sense of loyalty, in steps against the officers by disclosing their identity or otherwise.”

The judge said in the ‘Discussion’ section of her judgment that the coroner made a rational judgment that the quality of the evidence of the officers was likely to be improved by screens and that the quality of the evidence must necessarily be a weighty factor but quashed the coroner’s decision to permit screens to the extent that the screens prevent the identified family members from seeing the officers give evidence. However she decided on the entirety of the evidence that the coroner’s directions as to screens should continue to apply to officers identified as ‘C’ and ‘N’. The reasons for drawing this distinction were not set out.

She concluded that the screening of all the officers from the family was not in accordance with the common law duty of fairness and was a disproportionate measure. The argument that the family would both identify the officers and breach the anonymity order, for which there was no evidence, was wholly speculative.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal by the police

The grounds of appeal of the Chief Constable are that Mrs Justice Jefford’s decision in her judicial review was wrong for the following reasons:

  1. She misdirected herself as to law
  2. She made irrational and/or inconsistent conclusions.
  3. She failed to apply the common test on facts as found.
  4. She wrongly concluded that Article 3 was not engaged and/or that, whether or not it was engaged, the only rational order was to permit defined family witnesses to see the anonymised witnesses.

As one might have expected, there was a considerable overlap between those grounds and those advanced by the Police Federation which were as follows:

  1. The judge erred in ruling that the coroner had not taken account of the principle of open justice.
  2. In reaching that conclusion and substituting her own decision, the judge made errors of law and misdirected herself.
  3. Having reached her erroneous conclusion, the judge wrongly substituted her own findings on the evidence and minimised or dismissed evidence that was uncontested. She reached conclusions that are inconsistent and unsupported by any rationale.
  4. The judge failed to rule appropriately or at all on important submissions in particular as to Article 3, failed to consider the risks to the officers’ families at all and having substituted her own views as to the (un)likelihood of disclosure by force or threat, failed to consider the risk of inadvertent disclosure.
  5. Overall the judge was wrong to find that in the case of 14 out of the 16 witnesses, the balance came down in favour of allowing the family to see the witnesses.

At the outset of his submissions on behalf of the Chief Constable, Hugh Davies QC emphasised that the course which the coroner had adopted, that the officers would be screened from the public and the family but be fully visible to the coroner, the jury and the legal representatives, and the redaction and pixelation of the CCTV footage, so far as the public and family were concerned, was entirely compliant with the Article 2 procedural obligations on the State in relation to the investigation into the death of Mr Hall.

Mr Davies QC submitted that the order for anonymity recognised that Qassim Hall posed an objective threat and an indiscriminate risk to the officers and their families. The risk assessment by Inspector Rotchell, a qualified professional, was that Qassim Hall was a threat of harm in the limited area of Huddersfield. He continues to offend and express views antithetical to the police. The assessment by Mrs Justice Jefford that, if the public were able to see the officers give evidence, there was a real risk of identification by, or to, Qassim Hall, but that the family were in a different position, would not stand scrutiny. He had a background of mental instability and there was a real risk that if the family could see the officers give evidence, Qassim Hall would learn that the family had seen the witnesses and seek to obtain information about them, with an increased risk to them of his putting pressure on them to extract that information. Contrary to the judge’s conclusion that this was “pure speculation”, it was, he said, a real risk. The judge’s conclusion was contrary to the coroner’s finding that the threat to the officers and their families from Qassim Hall was “credible”.

Although in his opening submissions to the Court of Appeal, Mr Davies QC put the case on behalf of the Chief Constable on the basis of both the common law and Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, during the course of the hearing he accepted that (as Leslie Thomas QC for the Hall family had correctly pointed out) the application before the coroner was in the end one of common law . Article 2 was, accordingly, not relied upon further and Mr Davies QC accepted that Article 3 had been “put on the shelf”.

Ultimately, the real complaint levelled by the Chief Constable against the judicial review judgment was in relation to the judge’s categorisation of the threat or risk as “pure speculation” which amounts to a rejection of any objective justification.

So far as concerns the correct construction of Rule 18 of the Coroner’s Rules, Mr Davies QC adopted the submissions of Jonathan Hough QC on behalf of the coroner, which are summarised below.

Mr Davies QC submitted that the reference in the coroner’s ruling to “a balancing of competing interests between the officers and the family”, in the context of the ruling as a whole, could only be to the competition between the family’s open justice expectations and the position of the officers, which was the whole point of the competing submissions. He said that whilst the judge had recognised that the ruling should not be subjected to minute dissection, that was the outcome which the judgment had produced. The judge had adopted a narrow contextual analysis of the ruling. Whilst it was accepted that the coroner had arguably not gone through a “pre-flight check list” in relation to the competing interests of open justice on the one hand and the concerns of the officers on the other, Mr Davies QC submitted that the coroner had dealt with the competing interests adequately and the judge had been wrong to substitute her own decision.

On behalf of the Police Federation, Helen Malcolm QC indicated that the only area where her submissions diverged from those of Mr Davies QC was that she contended that both Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR were engaged fully. She submitted that the real question was not whether Article 3 was engaged as a matter of law, but how the protective duty of the state under Article 2 was to be satisfied. This concerned the balance to be struck between the state’s obligation to protect the officers and the state’s obligation to ensure that the family have access to the extent it is possible. She submitted that, contrary to the judge’s conclusion, the coroner had engaged in an appropriate balancing exercise and had given important weight to the principle of open justice in his ruling, where the reference to “natural justice” was clearly intended to be to “open justice”. The suggestion that he had not taken it into account at all was just not sustainable.

Ms Malcolm QC submitted that the judgment was riddled with public law errors. After the hearing she and her junior counsel, Brian Dean, helpfully compiled a Note setting out these errors. It is not necessary to enumerate all of them but two of them seemed to be of particular significance. The first is that the judge mis-characterised as “submissions” matters which formed part of the coroner’s decision in his ruling. The second is that, although the judge accepted the coroner’s findings on the evidence as to genuine fear and concern of the officers, she then minimised the risks and apostrophised the professional risk assessment of Inspector Rotchell as “wholly speculative” or “pure speculation”. Whether these are “public law errors” or just errors or inconsistencies in the judgment may not matter.

Ms Malcolm QC submitted that it was illogical for the judge to say at [64] of her judgment that there was a greater risk from the officers being seen by the general public than from there being seen by the family who were those who were closest to Qassim Hall and were in communication with him. She submitted in this context that the coroner and the Court would be entitled to take into account not only the risk of disclosure by family members of the officers’ identity as a consequence of pressure from Qassim Hall but also the risk of inadvertent disclosure.

She submitted that the judge had misunderstood the purpose of an inquest which was not to provide “catharsis” for the family or to allow them to assess the demeanour of the officers giving evidence, although that may be its welcome effect. Ms Malcolm QC emphasised that the inquest was not a blame-laying exercise, however much the family might want it to be, and that the family had no right to cross-examine witnesses other than with the permission of the coroner. She submitted that, in an inquisitorial process such as an inquest, getting the best evidence was of particular significance. It was in the public interest for the best evidence to be available to the fact-finder and that public interest was actively served by making life comfortable for the officers giving evidence. If there was no blame on them, then it was right and proper to protect them. If there was blame, the correct forum for that issue to be resolved was a criminal trial, not the inquest. She submitted that the coroner had to have an eye to the future. If the officers were identified and then threatened or harmed, it was less likely that there would be a full and proper criminal trial. The officers would be less able or willing to give evidence.

On behalf of the coroner, Jonathan Hough QC adopted a neutral stance as to the outcome of the appeal but he sought to assist the Court on two aspects of the case: (i) the correct interpretation of Rule 18 and (ii) the nature and content of the ruling.

He reminded the Court that prior to the enactment of Rule 18, there was no full procedural code and thus no statutory rule in relation to the use of screens in inquests. Any orders for screens were made under inherent common law case management powers. Before the Rules were made, in March 2013 the Ministry of Justice issued a consultation on coroners’ rules and regulations which attached draft Rules. The draft Rule 18 was similar to the current version, except that (i) sub-rule (2) only referred to improving the quality of the witness’s evidence as a basis for a screening determination; and (ii) sub-rule (3) did not make reference to national security interests as a factor in the determination. Following the consultation, the Ministry issued a response paper in which it explained: “We have amended rule 18 to allow the coroner to permit screened evidence only where this would be [i] likely to improve the quality of the evidence, or [ii] is in the interests of justice or [iii] national security.” The Rules were then laid before Parliament and passed in their current form.

Mr Hough QC submitted that the use of the word “may” in sub-rule (1) indicates that this is a discretionary power. Sub-rule (2) provides for a threshold condition that the discretion can only be exercised if the coroner determines that either giving evidence from behind screens would be likely to improve the quality of the witness’s evidence or “allow the inquest to proceed more expediently”. The “determination” referred to in sub-rule (3) is that determination made under (2) but it requires the coroner to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the interests of justice and national security. He submitted that, contrary to the judge’s view, “expediently” should be given a relatively broad meaning of “appropriately” and not limited to convenience or practicality. This made internal sense of the Rule and meant that a determination that the giving of evidence from behind screens would allow the inquest to proceed more appropriately was a threshold condition. The consideration of what was most appropriate brings in the wider issues of what is in the interests of justice or national security.

He submitted that if “expediently” is given the narrow meaning which the judge seems to have favoured, serious practical problems are created since it is difficult to see how a coroner could order screens for national security or operational reasons (for example in relation to witnesses from the security services or under-cover police officers) if expedience was limited to convenience or practicality. This wider meaning was consistent with the use of the word expedient in other statutory contexts. Thus, the now repealed Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 permitted the public to be excluded from a hearing if “it is in the public interest expedient so to do for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given.” Section 9A(2)(a) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (a section added by amendment after the making of the Rules) provides that a coroner may require a juror to surrender an electronic communications device if the order “is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice”. Mr Hough QC submitted that if “expedient” bore only the narrow meaning of “practical”, it would be an oxymoron in each case.

Mr Hough QC submitted that consideration of both anonymity orders and screens orders engages the open justice principle. What is entailed is a fact-sensitive balancing exercise taking account of all the factors, including the fears of witnesses, even if objective justification is weak or lacking. He submitted that in practice a coroner will comply with the balancing exercise by posing three base questions: (i) would the screening order sought improve the quality of the evidence or be appropriate in all the circumstances; (ii) if yes, does the balance of competing interests, including those of the family, justify the order sought; and (iii) would there be an Article 2 or 3 risk (risk to the life of the witness or risk of serious harm to the witness) if the order were refused? If so, the order would usually be made.

He submitted that there were five particular features of the case which provided the context for the coroner’s ruling: (i) the case involved the controversial death of a black man in police custody following multiple restraint; (ii) there was substantial evidence that Qassim Hall had a lengthy history of crime, including violence, although not the most serious, and a propensity for persistent harassment. On the basis of that evidence and evidence that he blamed the police for his brother’s death, the anonymity orders were made; (iii) the other members of the family had no criminal history and there was no evidence that they posed a threat to the officers; (iv) there was evidence that the officers were fearful of giving evidence if they were identified; and (v) it was common ground that the coroner, the jury and the legal representatives will see the witnesses but that if the general public saw the witnesses there is a real risk of their being identified to Qassim Hall, as the judge found at paragraph 64 of her judgment.

Mr Hough QC then drew attention to the salient aspects of the ruling. The coroner had recorded that Mr Thomas QC objected in principle to screens but also argued that his clients, the Hall family, should see the officers. In the Decision section, the coroner recorded that these applications are immensely fact-sensitive and he recognised the importance of the matters set out in Rule 18(3). He made the points about the screening of the officers from the family offending “natural justice” (in other words open justice) so that, as Mr Hough QC submitted, the coroner was focused on the central issue of whether the family members should see the witnesses. He dealt efficiently with the evidence about the threat posed by Qassim Hall, concluding (i) that the threat was credible; (ii) that the officers had a genuine fear; (iii) that it was affecting their health and (iv) that it would continue to do so, none of which, Mr Hough submitted, was controversial.

He submitted that the ruling followed the scheme of Rule 18 and said that the coroner was trying to reflect the terms of Rule 18(2) which requires one or other threshold condition to be satisfied, not cumulative conditions; and (ii) the coroner took account of the interests of justice in the remainder of his decision. He concluded that the use of screens would improve the quality of the evidence, which nobody challenged. He further stated that the coroner set out that he could not make the determination without considering all the circumstances of the case, in particular the matters set out at Rule 18(3)(a) and (c). No issue of national security impacted on his decision.

He then considered the remaining limb of (3) at sub-section (b), the interests of justice, saying they were best served when fact-finders could make findings on the basis of the best evidence which would be achieved by the evidence being given from behind screens. Mr Hough QC submitted that the coroner used the words “to the extent” at the beginning of paragraph 48 of his ruling because he recognised that he was considering both a threshold consideration and a balancing exercise, not purely a balancing exercise.

The judge had concluded that the coroner had engaged in too limited a balancing exercise but Mr Hough QC submitted that he had, in fact, taken account of the interests of the family.

On behalf of the Hall family, Adam Straw emphasised the importance of the principle of open justice in the balancing exercise that has to be undertaken. He drew specific attention to what was said by the Court of Appeal in at [63]:

Mr Straw submitted that part of the purpose of open justice was that the family should see the police witnesses and be able to assess their demeanour when a central issue was whether they had an honest belief that Andrew Hall posed a threat whilst in their custody. Mr Straw was, however, unable to point to any legal authority which established specifically that part of the principle of open justice was to enable members of the public, or here the family, to assess the demeanour of witnesses. He submitted that not having sight of the witnesses will make it more difficult for the family to understand the decisions reached by the jury.

In relation to ground 1 of the appeal by the Police Federation, that the judge had erred in concluding that the coroner had failed to take account of the principle of open justice, Mr Straw submitted that whether the judge was wrong was a question of fact and the standard of review for this Court was whether the judge’s decision was clearly erroneous. He relied upon the analysis of the circumstances in which an appellate court can review findings of fact by a court of first instance and that the judge was clearly right that the coroner had not had regard to the powerful imperative of open justice.

He submitted that the judge had been correct to substitute her decision for that of the coroner as there was a balancing exercise in considering the duty of fairness to a witness and on a judicial review it was for the Court to decide for itself whether a measure was fair. Whilst due weight should be given by the Court to the decision of the coroner as the primary decision-maker, in this case very little weight should be given to his decision since he had misdirected himself as to the law.

Leslie Thomas QC made similar points in his oral submissions. Whilst he accepted that the family was not the decision-maker in the inquest, they play an important part. They could not grieve properly until they were able to look into the eyes of the person who took their relative’s life, as their solicitor Alice Stevens (of Broudie Jackson Cantor) made clear in her witness statement. He emphasised that because this case concerned the death of a black man in custody, there was a belief that the system was weighted against them and there could be a cover-up. There was no good reason why they should not see the witnesses and if they did not, far from being at the heart of the coronial system as the Explanatory Memorandum said, they would feel side-lined.

He submitted that the Chief Constable was simply wrong in taking exception to the judge considering race as a factor relevant to open justice. A principal purpose of open justice was to restore public confidence and there was always a high public interest in open justice in any case where someone was killed at the hands of police officers, particularly the death of a black man, of which there were a disproportionate number globally. There was a legitimate interest in knowing whether race played any part in this death.

In relation to the complaint by the police that the judge had erred in distinguishing screening from the family and screening from the wider public he submitted that the onerous threshold to which Mr Straw had referred had not been met. The family was a small group of known individuals and Inspector Rotchell had identified no threat from the family itself. Ms Dyer says that she has known for four years the identity of two of the officers, but she has never disclosed that information to Qassim Hall. The family has made clear that they will not disclose the identity of the officers to him and has provided undertakings to the court. By contrast, the wider public could be anyone who came into the public gallery. That person’s character or propensity was an unknown risk. The distinction the judge had drawn was a rational one.

Mr Thomas QC submitted that the judge was correct to conclude that there was no objective risk, that there was no evidence that the family will breach the undertakings and the assertion that they will be forced to do so by Qassim Hall is, as the judge, said pure speculation. The alleged risk was without evidential or objective foundation. It was not correct that the judge had failed to evaluate the subjective fears of the officers. She had correctly stated the common law test and concluded that the officers’ fears and concerns were genuine, but she was entitled to conclude that they had less weight because they were not objectively justified.

In relation to the suggestion by the Police Federation that Inspector Rotchell’s evidence was not contested, Mr Thomas QC said that ultimately the only risk relied upon was that Qassim Hall would somehow forcibly extract the information about the identity of the officers from the family – and even that was contested by the family. There was no evidence of any stronger risk and no evidence of any risk of inadvertent disclosure.

The starting point for the analysis of this appeal, said Lord Justice Flaux, must be to consider what is the correct construction of Rule 18 of the Coroner’s Rules. As was essentially common ground between counsel for both the police and the Hall family, the Rule is not happily worded, but the analysis of the Rule put forward by Mr Hough QC is the correct one. Rule 18(1) confers a discretion and Rule 18(2) then provides that one of two threshold conditions must be met before the discretion can be exercised: That the coroner determines that giving evidence behind screens would be likely to improve the quality of the evidence or that it would be likely to allow the inquest to proceed more expediently, or appropriately.

In making that determination a coroner has to consider all the circumstances of the case under Rule 18(3) and, in particular, the matters listed in (a) to (c). In agreement with Mr Hough QC, it can be said that if “expediently” bore the narrow meaning of efficiency or practicality, it is difficult to see how, in the case for example of evidence from the security services or undercover police officers, ordering the evidence to be given from behind screens, whilst in the interests of national security, could be said to allow the inquest to proceed more efficiently or in a more practical manner. On the other hand, if expediency is equated with allowing the inquest to proceed in the most appropriate manner, the coroner can give the proper consideration which (3)(b) requires him to give to the interests of justice and of national security.

The “interests of justice” clearly is and is intended to be a wide term which encompasses the principle of open justice. The importance of that principle has been emphasised in countless legal authorities in the higher courts.

The critical question for the Court, said Flaux LJ, is whether the coroner erred in law in concluding that an order for the officers’ evidence to be given behind screens was justified. In considering that question, it is important to bear in mind that, despite the attempt by Ms Malcolm QC to broaden the application, the application which was made to the coroner was under the common law and not under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.

Furthermore, if the Appeal Court considers that the coroner did not err in law, then it must follow that the judge’s determination that he misdirected himself in law was wrong. The suggestion by both counsel representing the Hall family (Messrs Thomas QC and Sraw) that somehow this was a question of fact for the judge or that this Court should exercise the same caution in relation to reviewing the judge’s conclusion as we would if she had made findings of fact is wholly misconceived.

The determination of the critical question whether the coroner erred in law in turn depended upon whether he gave sufficient weight to the principle of open justice in engaging in the balancing exercise required by the common law test. As the judge herself recognised, the coroner’s decision must be read with a degree of benevolence or pragmatism.

It seems to me that this approach by the judge fails to take into account sufficiently the opening words of the coroner’s ruling: “To the extent that my decision has involved a balancing of competing interests between the officers and the family”. That is not a reference to what follows in the subsequent paragraphs, which does not consider those competing interests, but to what he has already said elsewhere in the earlier Decision section about those competing interests. In particular, the coroner identifies his instinctive concern that the proposition that the family of the deceased who died in circumstances calling into question the discharge by the state of its Article 2 obligations should not see the agents of the state implicated in his death whilst giving evidence offends the principle of “natural justice” (by which he clearly means open justice) and procedural fairness. He goes on to say the instinct is all the stronger where the application for the use of screens is not based on evidence or intelligence reflecting adversely on the family members most likely to be affected by it.

Those paragraphs do demonstrate that the coroner had well in mind the principle of open justice and that that principle would be offended if the family could not see the witnesses. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that he failed to appreciate the significance of the principle. What he then went on to do was to balance against the principle of open justice, and the interest of the family in seeing the witnesses, the fears of those witnesses of threats from Qassim Hall and their interest in not being identified to Qassim Hall. Thus, in my judgment, the judge was wrong to conclude that the coroner had only weighed against the quality of the evidence being improved by the use of screens the question of whether the effectiveness of questioning will be impeded by screens and thus engaged in too limited a balancing exercise. The judge has overlooked the earlier part of the Decision section where the competing interests were considered and balanced. This may have been overlooked by the judge because she appears to have erroneously characterised as submissions aspects of the ruling which were clearly part of the coroner’s decision.

Whilst the ruling is not expressed as clearly as it might be, the coroner did not err in law in failing to take proper account of the principle of open justice or engage in too narrow a balancing exercise. It follows that the judge was wrong to conclude that he had erred in law and to substitute her own decision for that of the coroner. Accordingly both appeals were allowed and the coroner’s order reinstated.

In the circumstances, Flaux LJ said it was not strictly necessary to consider the other criticisms of the judgment raised by the appellants but, nevertheless, he dealt with them relatively briefly: The principal matter was the judge’s distinction between what she recognised is the real risk that, if the general public could see the officers give evidence, the officers would be identified by or to Qassim Hall but the position of the family was very different and the suggestion that they may be forced by Qassim Hall to disclose the identities of the officers was “pure speculation”.

Despite Mr Thomas QC’s arguments to the contrary, Flaux LJ (and Lord Justice Lewison) agreed with Ms Malcolm QC that the distinction which the judge draws is an illogical one. Aside from Qassim Hall, or an associate of his going into the public gallery and identifying the officers (and in the case of an associate passing on information to him), it is difficult to see how a member of the public seeing the officers creates a real risk of identification to Qassim Hall whereas the members of the family who have that familial connection with Qassim Hall and are in communication with him do not create a real risk.

The professional risk assessment of Inspector Rotchell set out in his second statement was:

As already noted, the coroner referred to the fears of the officers that Qassim Hall would seek to harm them if made aware of their identity and he said that the Rule 18 power could only be exercised in respect of the threat said to be posed to officers by Qassim Hall. He found that threat to be credible and went on to make the further findings to which Mr Hough QC referred. Although the coroner dealt with the matter in a rather attenuated fashion, it seems that he was concluding that the fears of the officers were both subjectively genuine and objectively justified. By finding that the threat from Qassim Hall was credible, he was accepting the risk assessment of Inspector Rotchell that there was an objective threat to the officers from Qassim Hall. In the light of his evidence, the specific finding by the coroner (which was not challenged on the judicial review) and the fact that an order for anonymity was made by the coroner without objection from the family (itself a powerful indicator that the officers’ fears were objectively justified) the judge was wrong to conclude that the risk of Qassim Hall extracting the identity of the officers from family members was pure speculation. The risk and the threat he posed were objectively established.

As noted in the summary of the submissions of the parties, Mr Thomas QC advanced various reasons why the family should be able to see the police witnesses give their evidence pursuant to the principle of open justice. He referred to the fact that this was a case of a black man who died in custody (or rather immediately after having been in custody) in circumstances where the police as agents of the state were implicated in his death and there was a high public interest in open justice. That was a submission he also made to the coroner and the coroner clearly accepted the force of the submission in his findings, but he then had to balance that public interest (and interest of the family) against the interests of the officers: The balancing exercise in which he engaged was an appropriate one.

Mr Thomas also submitted that it was important for the family to be able to see the officers implicated in Mr Hall’s death in order to achieve catharsis. This does not seem to have been advanced as a distinct argument before the coroner. Whilst Ms Malcolm QC is, no doubt, right that achieving this purging for the deceased’s family is not the purpose of an inquest, the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Rules states that one of the policy objectives of the reforms introduced by the 2009 Act is “to put the needs of bereaved people at the heart of the coroner system” demonstrates that, since one of those needs is likely to be the need for closure, this is an important matter to be taken into consideration. However, the coroner recognised the interests of the family but concluded on the balancing exercise that they were outweighed by the need to allay the fears of the officers to ensure that they gave the best evidence, itself an important aspect of the public interest.

Mr Thomas QC and Mr Straw emphasised that the family should be able to see the witnesses give their evidence in order to assess their demeanour. Mr Thomas QC did raise the question of demeanour before the coroner, but only in the context of pixelation of the CCTV footage so that the jury would not be able to assess the demeanour of the officers during the struggle with and restraint of Mr Hall, but the concerns he raised were addressed by ensuring that the coroner, jury and legal representatives see an “unredacted” version of the video footage. Counsel for the Hall family were unable to point to any legal precedent which considered that one of the reasons why the members of the deceased’s family, or members of the public more generally, should be able to see witnesses give their evidence is to assess their demeanour.

As was pointed out in the course of legal argument, recent decisions of the Appeal Court have cast some doubt on the extent to which assessment of demeanour by the Court is a reliable indicator as to credibility. However, whatever the values of or limitations as to assessment of demeanour, that assessment is for the fact-finder in any court, here the jury in the coroner’s court, and not for the family of the deceased. Mr Straw’s fall-back submission that unless the family could see the witnesses, they might not understand the decision reached by the jurydid not find favour. As Lewison LJ pointed out in argument, if the family thought a witness whom they could see was lying but the jury believed him, in one sense that poses a worse problem.

Accordingly, it was consider that none of the additional matters raised by Mr Thomas QC and Mr Straw affects the validity of the balancing exercise in which it was found that, contrary to the judge’s view, the coroner did engage.

Finally, it was recorded in the Appeal Court judgment that during the course of argument we raised with the parties the question of whether the media should be able to see the police witnesses. No real objection was raised on behalf of the police, but points were raised as to the safeguards that would need to be in place and matters such as undertakings by representatives of the media. In the circumstances, although if an application is made to the coroner by representatives of the media to see the witnesses give evidence, it will be worthy of consideration, the decision as to whether to accede to such an application and on what terms is one for the coroner.

For the above reasons, said Flaux LJ, the appeals of the Chief Constable and officers B and E and of the Police Federation and the officers it represents were allowed and restore the order for screens made by the coroner. Lewison agreed with his fellow law lord.

The dissenting judgment of Lord Justice Males

But the allowing of the appeal was not unaminous. Uncommon in both the civil and criminal appeals courts. The judgment of Males LJ is set out in full (apart from minor corrections). For anyone interested in deaths following police custody and inquest hearings it is a recommended read, providing useful additional detail about what happened in the lead up to the death of Andrew Hall and, more crucially, through the eyes of this journalist at least, the most lucid, well laid-out argument about the case and the points of law in issue. Without wishing, in any way, to demean Flaux LJ’s output, it is an outstanding piece of work (and learning) from Lord Justce Males:

“While I agree with much of Flaux LJ’s judgment, I have reached a different conclusion. To explain why, it will be necessary to travel over some of the ground which Flaux LJ has already covered.

When an application for witnesses at an inquest to be permitted to give their evidence behind a screen is based on fear for the witnesses’ or their families’ safety if their identity becomes known, there are two bases on which the application may be made. One is that the witnesses’ rights under Article 2 or Article 3 ECHR are engaged. The other is that screens are necessary in accordance with the common law principle of fairness.

As appears from cases such as In re Officer L [2007] UKHL 36, [2007] 1 WLR 2135, there are material differences between an application invoking Convention rights and an application under the common law, albeit that both routes may, and often will, lead to the same destination. These differences may be summarised as follows:

The application for screens in the present case was made under the common law. Although some submissions were made to us based on Article 3, that was not a case advanced to the coroner and, as I have explained, it would have given rise to different considerations. It follows that we are concerned with the common law and our primary focus should be on the coroner’s decision.

At common law, open justice is always an important consideration to which, as a matter of law, substantial weight must be given (for example in R (T) v West Yorkshire (Western Area) Senior Coroner [217] EWCA Civ 318, [2018] 2 WLR 211 at para [56] referring to open justice as “the fundamental principle in respect of all proceedings before any court, including coroners’ courts” and at para [64] referring to “the powerful imperative of open justice”). Accordingly any derogation from open justice (including both anonymity and the use of screens) must have a clear justification and must go no further than is reasonably necessary.

I agree with what Flaux LJ has said concerning Rule 18 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013. Although in some respects not happily drafted, the terms of the Rule permit (and therefore should be read as requiring) the principle of open justice to be taken into account when making a decision as to the use of screens. Depending on the circumstances of the case, this may fall to be considered either (1) under Rule 18(3) when making the Rule 18(2) determination whether screens would improve the quality of the evidence or allow the inquest to proceed more expediently or (2) when considering the overall justice of the case after having made that determination. What matters is that it should be clear that the principle has been considered and given proper weight at some stage.

Where the coroner determines, after giving substantial weight to the need for open justice, that the use of screens is reasonably necessary, the inquest will be Article 2 compliant: Bubbins v UK (2005) 41 EHRR 24.

In considering whether there is justification for the use of screens, the purpose of the principle of open justice as applied to the facts of the case must be taken into account (T v West Yorkshire Coroner at para [63]). In the case of an inquest, one major purpose of open justice is to ensure public confidence in the fairness, thoroughness and transparency of the process. Referring to the state’s common law duty to investigate deaths of those in custody in R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51, [2004] 1 AC 653 at [31], Lord Bingham’s summary of the purposes of open justice in an inquest into the death of a person in custody emphasises not only the importance of public confidence, but also the particular role of the bereaved family. The importance of that role is underlined by paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013, explaining that one policy objective of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 was to “put the needs of bereaved people at the heart of the coroner system”. It is therefore not surprising that Rule 18(3)(a) requires the coroner to consider any views expressed by an interested person, which clearly includes the family of the deceased.

In the present case it was accepted (or at any rate not disputed) that the police witnesses should be anonymous. This was itself an important derogation from open justice which was necessary because Qassim Hall, the deceased’s brother, was found to represent a credible threat to the safety of the witnesses and their families if their names were known to him, and because the officers were genuinely fearful for the safety of themselves and their families and, in some cases, that fear was affecting their health. The need for anonymity was not challenged before the coroner and has been accepted by the family. The issue before the coroner was whether those concerns justified a further derogation from open justice, namely the use of screens. Before the coroner the family challenged the need for the use of screens at all, and their submission that witnesses should not be screened from family members (other than Qassim Hall) was merely a fallback position. It is therefore understandable, perhaps, that the principal focus of the coroner’s decision was on whether screens were necessary at all.

The family has not challenged in this appeal the coroner’s decision that it was necessary to screen the witnesses from the public in general (including, if he attends, Qassim Hall). That was because of the risk that if the witnesses were seen by the public, their identity would be disclosed to Qassim Hall. For my part I do not see any want of logic in saying that the witnesses should be screened from the public, but not from the family. If Qassim Hall is indeed anxious to discover the witnesses’ identity, it would not be difficult for him to ask an associate who is familiar with police officers in the Huddersfield area to attend on his behalf.

We are concerned only with the coroner’s decision that screens should prevent the family from seeing the witnesses give their evidence. It is important to note, however, as Flaux LJ has explained, that the family’s legal representatives will have sight of the witnesses while they give evidence and have been or will be given access to unedited CCTV footage which (we were told) shows in full the incident during which force was used on the deceased by police officers and when restraint was applied to him. We have not seen that footage, but we are told that it shows a struggle between Andrew Hall and a number of police officers extending over several minutes, in the course of which officers struck Mr Hall a number of times and there is some evidence of him striking back. The family and the public will see an edited version of that footage in which officers’ faces will be pixelated and their names will be “bleeped out”. The jury will see a further version of the footage in which there is no pixelation but officers’ names remain “bleeped out”. It follows that the family’s legal representatives will not be hampered in any way in conducting cross examination of the police witnesses by the existence of screens. Moreover, if it were to turn out that there is anything relevant to the cross examination which has been removed in the editing process, the family’s legal representatives will be in a position to cross examine about it, albeit that care will need to be exercised to ensure that what is said does not identify the officers concerned.

Accordingly the use of screens to prevent the family from seeing the police witnesses will not affect the efficacy of the investigation into Andrew Hall’s death. This case is not, therefore, about the ability of the family to have the evidence of those witnesses properly challenged. Whether or not screens are used, there will be a thorough investigation into the circumstances of his death in which the family’s legal representatives will be able to challenge the officers’ evidence and to suggest, to whatever extent is appropriate, that the use of force by the police was unlawful. The case is solely concerned with whether the family should be permitted to see that process as well as to hear it.

It is, therefore, necessary to consider how the purposes of open justice in inquest proceedings may be served by enabling members of the deceased’s family to see police officers whom they believe to be responsible for the deceased’s death give their evidence and the extent to which those purposes may be frustrated if the family is unable to see the officers do so.

This topic was addressed in the witness statement of Deborah Coles, an Executive Director of INQUEST, a charity which provides advice to bereaved people concerning contentious deaths, their investigations and the inquest process. Ms Coles has extensive experience acquired over 25 years of working with families of persons who have met their death at the hands of state agents. Under the heading of “The benefit for families of seeing important witnesses giving evidence”, she identified four overlapping benefits, which can conveniently be labelled “trust”, “demeanour”, “accountability” and “catharsis”. She said:

With the exception of what Ms Coles says in paragraph 8 of her statement about families placing weight on the demeanour and body language of a witness, I regard this as a compelling explanation of why it is important for family members to see the witnesses themselves in circumstances such as these and why it is not a sufficient alternative that their legal representatives may do so. As to demeanour, however, it is not the family’s role to determine whether the witnesses are telling the truth, that being the function of the jury, while in any event it has increasingly come to be recognised that demeanour and body language are an unreliable guide to truthfulness (see R (SS) (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391 at [33] to [43]). I have no doubt that in the present case the CCTV footage of the incident will be played many times during the cross examination of the police witnesses, if necessary in slow motion. The extent to which their evidence is supported by or consistent with that footage will be a far more reliable guide to whether they are telling the truth than their demeanour or body language.

For the family, Leslie Thomas QC placed considerable weight on the fact that Andrew Hall was black. He said that there was a particular and significant public interest in an inquest into the death of a black man in police custody, and that in such cases it is common for the bereaved family to believe that the system is weighted against them, that there is a cover-up, and that police officers are given special privileges. For that reason, he submitted, it is particularly important for the family to be able to see the police officers give their evidence.

For the Chief Constable, Hugh Davies QC took issue with this approach. He insisted that the race of the deceased is irrelevant and that there is a strong public interest in a full and transparent investigation into the death of any person in custody, regardless of their race. Accordingly the public interest in open justice, including the need to hold state agents to account, is no different in the case of a black man than in any other case. From this, it follows that the deceased’s race cannot provide a stronger case for the family to be permitted to see the police witnesses give evidence than if the deceased had been white.

It is of course correct that the strength of the public interest in a full and transparent investigation into the death of a person in custody does not vary according to the deceased’s race. That was not Mr Thomas’s submission. Such an investigation is essential in every case for the reasons given by Lord Bingham in Amin. But I would accept that the death of a black man in police custody gives rise to particularly acute concerns. That is because of the perception which Mr Thomas described. It would be idle to deny that this perception exists. There is no doubt that black communities have in general less confidence in the police than other sections of the community, and that on occasion distrust and lack of confidence have led to racial tensions and conflicts. For present purposes what matters is not whether the perception is well-founded, but rather the fact that it exists.

In these circumstances, it is entirely understandable that the family of Andrew Hall should wish not only to hear, but also to see the police witnesses when they explain why they believed it was necessary to restrain him with the use of force, including the striking of a number of blows, and to see those witnesses when they react to the case which seems likely to be put to them, that the force used was excessive and unlawful.

All this amounts, in my judgment, to a powerful case that the application of the open justice principle in the circumstances of the present inquest requires that they should be able to do so. If they are not permitted to see the police witnesses, there is a real risk that the inquest may not achieve all of the purposes which open justice is intended to promote. This does not necessarily mean that the application for screens should be rejected. But it does mean that a compelling justification will be required to sustain the coroner’s order that the witnesses be screened from the family’s view.

A threshold requirement which must be satisfied before screens can be used is that their use “would be likely to improve the quality of the evidence given by the witness or allow the inquest to proceed more expediently”. In this case the coroner based his decision on the fact that screens would be likely to improve the quality of the police witnesses’ evidence and he did not consider any question of expediency.

A witness’s subjective concerns may be relevant in two overlapping ways. The first, referred to by Lord Carswell in Officer L in the passage from [22] cited above, is that fairness requires that witnesses should not be subjected to fear, particularly if that affects their health, if that can be avoided. The existence of such fears is therefore a factor to be taken into account in the overall assessment. The second is that such fears may impede the witness, for example because he is distracted or pre-occupied, from giving his evidence to the best of his ability – in short, from doing himself justice.

The requirement that screens would be likely to improve the quality of a witness’s evidence is directed at the need for the inquest, in this case the jury, to have the best possible evidence in order to determine the matters which it is the purpose of the inquest to determine, namely who the deceased was, and how when, where and in what circumstances he met his death. This is distinct from allaying a witness’s subjective concerns, which is a separate factor in the balance.

While any likely improvement in the quality of a witness’s evidence is sufficient to satisfy the threshold requirement under Rule 18(2), and obviously it is desirable that the jury should have the best possible evidence before it in order to perform its task, the weight to be given to such a likelihood in the coroner’s overall evaluation whether there is sufficient justification to depart from the principle of open justice must depend on the circumstances of the case. It is necessary to consider what difference the use of screens is likely to make, for example whether any improvement in a witness’s evidence is likely to be significant or only marginal and to balance this against the need for open justice. In general, for example, police officers can be expected to have some degree of resilience when giving evidence. In the present case it should not be too difficult for the officers, assisted as they will be by the CCTV footage, to explain what they did and why they did it – as indeed they have already done to the IOPC investigation which cleared them of any wrongdoing. In the case of an important witness, such as a police officer who has used force on a person in custody, the fact that screens would be likely to improve his evidence only marginally (if that were the position) would be unlikely to carry much weight.

The justification put forward before the coroner for screening the witnesses from the family was a narrow one. The only risk on which the Chief Constable and the witnesses relied was the risk of harm caused by Qassim Hall who (it was accepted) should not see the witnesses. Moreover, at any rate by the conclusion of the hearing, it was not contended that any family member would deliberately or even inadvertently disclose information to Qassim Hall which would enable him to identify any of the officers. Rather, the case which was advanced was that family members would be vulnerable to force or threats of force by Qassim Hall. As Mr Davies put it in submissions to the Coroner on behalf of the Chief Constable and the officers whom he represented, his submissions being adopted by Mr Brian Dean who represented the remaining officers:

This was the only objective basis for the existence of a risk of harm on which the Chief Constable and the witnesses relied.

Accordingly the objective justification for the use of screens depends on the existence of a real risk that Qassim Hall would seek to exert pressure on family members to reveal information likely to enable him to identify one or more of the officers and that those family members would succumb to such pressure.

It is right to acknowledge that in summarising the arguments made to him, the coroner referred to the acceptance by Mr Dean, representing some of the police officers, of the fact “that the use of screens involves a significant departure from an important general principle of natural justice”, and to the submission by Mr Thomas that the family was “asking for no more than the application of the ordinary rules of natural justice”. It is plain that the coroner’s reference to “natural justice” meant (or at least included) the principle of open justice. Further, the coroner began the “Decision” part of his ruling, after acknowledging that applications for the use of screens were fact sensitive and required him to take into account the matters set out in Rule 18, as follows:

I would accept that these passages show that the coroner’s starting point was that the principle of open justice required that the family should be able to see the witnesses in question. He stated also that he accepted Mr Thomas’s submission that Rule 18 was expressed in terms making clear that the presumption was that evidence at an inquest should not be given from behind a screen.

So far, it might be possible to criticise the coroner’s ruling on the basis that he did not spell out that open justice is a principle to which substantial weight must be given or the corollary that the use of screens in the circumstances of the present case requires a compelling justification. Certainly he did not refer to the particular importance of transparency in the case of the death of a black man in police custody. However, if that criticism stood alone, it might not be fair to regard the coroner as having misdirected himself, having regard to the need to accord his ruling a benevolent interpretation. Clearly, having started from the point that “natural justice” required that the family should be able to see the witnesses, he was then correct to go on to consider whether there was a justification for departing from that position.

The coroner went on to find that the police witnesses were genuinely fearful for their safety and for the safety of their families and that, in some cases, those fears were affecting their health. There was, therefore, a finding of subjective fears which were having serious consequences for the officers concerned.

The coroner found also that these fears were credible, by which he meant objectively well-founded, in the light of Qassim Hall’s history including convictions for offences of violence against the police (albeit I would add, relatively minor violence) and a history of making threats of violence. It is important, however, to see precisely what it was that the Coroner found. There are two relevant paragraphs of his ruling, which I set out with my added emphasis:

Thus the coroner found that Qassim Hall presented a threat to the safety of the officers or their families if he became aware of their identity. But the coroner did not at any stage consider whether there was an objectively well-founded risk that permitting the family to see the witnesses give evidence would cause Qassim Hall to become aware of this. In view of the clear but limited way in which the Chief Constable and the officers had put their case, the question which the coroner ought to have considered was whether there was a real as distinct from fanciful risk that Qassim Hall would seek to extract this information from family members by force or threats of force and that they would succumb to those threats. If he had done so, there is in my judgment no basis in the evidence on which he could have concluded that there was such a real risk. There was no basis for thinking that Qassim Hall is so determined to wreak vengeance upon police officers that he is prepared to use violence or to make a credible threat of violence against members of his own family (clearly a threat which was less than credible would not have this effect). Indeed Inspector Danny Rotchell, who carried out a detailed assessment of the risks presented by Qassim Hall for the purpose of the hearing before the coroner, did not really address this possibility. Moreover, there was unchallenged evidence that some family members already know the identity of two of the officers but have not revealed this to Qassim Hall. There was no evidence that Qassim Hall has taken any steps to identify or threaten any of the officers who may have been involved in the events of his brother’s death on 13th September 2016 in the time which has since elapsed.

Accordingly, while the coroner’s findings about the risks presented by Qassim Hall are not challenged, they do not in my judgment justify a conclusion that there is an objectively well-founded risk of harm to the officers or their families. In my judgment the judge was right to say at [64] that “The suggestion that [the family] may be forced by Qassim Hall to disclose the identities of the officers is pure speculation”. Although her use of the word “speculation” was criticised, it is clear that what she meant was that there was no sound evidential basis for thinking that this might happen.

Having made his findings about the risks presented by Qassim Hall, the coroner went on to consider whether the use of screens would be likely to improve the quality of the officers’ evidence and to consider the matters set out in Rule 18(3). He concluded that the quality of the evidence would be improved, but did not expressly refer at this stage to the importance of open justice and its role in promoting the purposes of the inquest. He said:

In my judgment this ruling was flawed.

First, as already noted, the coroner did not treat the need for open justice as a factor to which substantial weight had to be given as a matter of law, in particular in a case concerned with the death of a black man in police custody, so that a powerful justification was needed to override this.

Second, the coroner appears to have lost sight of what had previously been his stated starting point, namely his instinctive view that the family should see the witnesses give evidence as a matter of natural justice “in the sense of the fair and impartial application of law and procedure”. Instead, by the time he came to make his decision, his new starting point was that the interests of justice generally were best served by allowing the use of screens when that would enable the witnesses’ best evidence to be given. That was an error in my judgment. The fact that the use of screens would be likely to improve the quality of the witnesses’ evidence was a necessary threshold but in itself was not a sufficient justification for their use. Nor did it establish a rebuttable presumption that screens should be allowed.

Third, it is clear that the coroner proceeded on the basis that there was an objectively well-founded risk of harm to the officers or their families from Qassim Hall when, for the reasons which I have explained, he was not entitled to do so. It is to be expected that this is a factor that would have carried considerable weight with him as no judge would wish to expose witnesses or their families to such a risk. Subjective fears, however genuine and even when having consequences on a witness’s health, carry rather less weight.

Fourth, while it is obviously desirable that a witness should be able to give his best evidence, there is a distinction between providing for the comfort and allaying the fears of a witness on the one hand and enabling the inquest to obtain the most reliable evidence on the other. So far as obtaining best evidence is concerned, the coroner did not consider whether or to what extent the concerns of the officers which would or might prevent them from giving their best evidence would have a material impact on the ability of the inquest to arrive at reliable conclusions. In the present case what the officers did will be apparent from the CCTV footage. Whether the force which they used was reasonable and proportionate on the one hand or excessive on the other is an objective question, which will likewise depend primarily on the CCTV footage. Their evidence will go mainly to the question whether they had an honest belief in the need to use the force which they used. The coroner did not consider how much difference the presence or absence of screens would make to their ability to give evidence on that issue, which would not necessarily be the same in all cases. The coroner has found that it would make some difference but it is hard to think, at least in some cases, that the difference will be significant. There can be no doubt that the officers will say, as no doubt they have already said to the IOPC investigation, that they honestly believed that their use of force was reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances as they perceived them to be. Accordingly, while the coroner was entitled to say that obtaining best evidence from the police witnesses was a factor in favour of the use of screens, and while in general the weight to be given to each factor was a matter for him, his decision contained no analysis of what difference the use of screens was likely to make to the ability of the inquest to arrive at the truth. Without such analysis, he was not in a position to decide how much weight to give this factor.

When these flaws are taken together, I do not think that the coroner’s decision can be saved by giving it a benevolent interpretation.

Accordingly the balancing exercise which the coroner ought to have carried out would have taken account of the following factors. Militating strongly against the use of screens was the principle of open justice for all the reasons which I have explained. Factors in favour of their use were (1) the subjective fears of the witnesses (which had not been shown to be objectively well-founded), (2) the fact that, in some cases, the witnesses’ health had been affected, (3) the fact that the use of screens was likely to improve the quality of the witnesses’ evidence, but the weight to be given to this factor would require some analysis, as above, and (4) the fact that the use of screens would not impede the effective testing of the witnesses’ evidence. It would also have been sensible to recognise that the order for anonymity and the fact that the officers would be screened from the public would go some way to alleviating any concern.

For these reasons I agree with the judge that the coroner misdirected himself. I do not agree, however, that this is a case where, undertaking the correct exercise, there is only one possible decision which could lawfully be made. Accordingly I consider that the judge was wrong to substitute her own decision whether screens should be used rather than remitting the decision to the coroner.

I would, therefore, set aside the coroner’s ruling together with the judge’s order and would remit the matter to the coroner to make a fresh decision in the light of this judgment. To that extent I would allow the appeal. However, I would not disturb the judge’s order in relation to Officers C and N, as there has been no appeal from that part of her decision.

I agree with what Flaux LJ has said regarding the reporting of the inquest. For my part, I can see no reason why representatives of responsible media organisations, who can be relied upon not to disclose information to Qassim Hall and to report the unlikely event of any threat being made to them by him, should not be permitted to see the police officers give evidence. That would go some way to promote the objectives served by the principle of open justice. However, I agree that it should be left to the coroner to deal with any application which may be made, or if appropriate to consider the matter on his own initiative.”

Alice Stevens, who represents the family, said after the judicial review hearing: “Andrew’s family have been patiently waiting for three years for a full and fearless inquest. Their priority has always been to find out how Andrew died in such tragic circumstances yet, as a result of anonymity and screening applications, they been subjected to background checks, numerous hearings and multiple legal aid applications.

Recent years have shown a rising trend in police officers seeking anonymity and screening at inquests in which their actions are called into question. This judgment rightly highlights the fact that open justice in inquests involving contact by state bodies should not be undervalued and that screening may undervalue public confidence and should not be granted without careful consideration. Andrew’s family will now be able to fully focus on Andrew’s inquest and try to obtain answers to the many questions that have surrounding his death.”

Although events have superceded that statement much of the sentiments expressed therein remain intact.

Deborah Coles, Director of INQUEST saysWe repeatedly see defensive and combative tactics by police lawyers in the growing number of anonymity requests at inquests. This is about justice being done and being seen to be done. Anonymity goes against the spirit of an open and transparent investigation and hinders scrutiny of public officials. This judgment recognises the significant public interest in deaths of black men in custody. Open justice is vital to assuage public concern about cover ups and to ensure accountability.”

The Hall family are working with INQUEST caseworker Anita Sharma. The Independent Office for Police Conduct are interested parties in the legal proceedings but have, so far, not been represented. The findings of their investigation, following the death of Andrew Hall, will not be made public until after the inquest.

This is an important case, very much in a town I know well, and with familiar faces on counsel’s ‘front row’. I will be following it from the press seats or, for the time being at least, via a rather more stark Cisco Webex Platform.

Other anonymity orders have, typically, been granted for police officers following fatal shootings. However, there has been a recent, creeping trend of anonymity applications being made, and granted, to police officers at inquests and misconduct hearings in other circumstances, such as where the death involved police restraint. This, say INQUEST, ‘is disproportionately the case where the person who died is racialised as black’.

Deaths of black men in police custody, or shortly after restraint, have, over the years, been highly controversial and have led to high profile public protests as well as protracted legal battles to uncover the truth over what exactly occurred.

Recent anonymity cases include the deaths of Rashan Charles, Edson da Costa and Henry Hicks. The first two were young black men.

Police officers were also granted anonymity following the fatal shootings of Azelle Rodney, Mark Duggan, Anthony Grainger and Jermaine Baker. Again, all highly controversial cases. I am particularly adjacent to Anthony’s shooting by Greater Manchester Police officers via his bereaved partner, Gail Hadfield Grainger.

West Yorkshire Police are also understood to be applying for anonymity for officers involved in the shooting of another Huddersfield man, Yassar Yaqub. He was shot through the windscreen of his car after a hard stop adjacent to the M62 motorway at Ainley Top in January, 2017. The inquest touching his death is listed for hearing in January, 2022 (read more here).

UPDATE: At the pre-inquest hearing on 19th February, 2021 it was revealed that the Hall family have appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court. The full report from that hearing can be read here.

Page last updated: Monday 22nd February, 2020 at 1035 hours

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

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

This article contains public sector information licensed under Open Government Licence v3.0 (read more here).

© Neil Wilby 2015-2021. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Barking up the wrong tree

In November last year, writes Neil Wilby, an article was published on this website that charted the course of what is now a year long journalistic investigation into alleged wrongdoing by police, MPs and local councillors in Oldham, a large Pennine town on the eastern edge of the Greater Manchester region (read in full here).

It was the seventh article in a lengthening series, the intended number was two or, maybe, three, and led to its author being reported to the police last October as a result of a previous article (read here) and, again, earlier this month. Having not heard from the Greater Manchester force in the ensuing four months, apart from, routinely, their press office and information rights team, it is unclear what the specification and substance of those complaints actually are. The person making some of them, Kerry Skelhorn, who works for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and is based in East Anglia, has described me, both on air and on social media, as “a psychopath”. That, apart from being highly defamatory, presents a substantial evidential threshold when the suspect is a man of advancing years with an unblemished criminal record.

As one might infer, it has been a challenging assignment as “psychopath” would not be the most unflattering term used to smear a journalist (“paedophile protector” is amongst the others), whose published output, following detailed, forensic analysis, many interviews with key figures and scene visits (pre-lockdown, of course), plainly doesn’t marry with the original allegations of a long-running, wide-scale ‘cover-up’ of child sexual exploitation in Oldham (read more here). The reality is that a highly emotive subject has been crudely weaponised by a group of bitter discontents, headed by a man from another Borough, desperate to distract from his own alleged serious wrongdoings.

The latest article also resulted in a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), alongside the local council, and its Leader, Cllr Sean Fielding (pictured below left with Cll Arooj Shah and Jim McMahon MP), whom, it was alleged, had leaked information to assist in the construction of the piece. The complaint did not have evidence to support such an assertion. In reality, it involved painstaking enquiries and a contact with a number of sources, including material from some of the complainants themselves.

It had chronicled the long-running, highly personalised attacks made on Cllr Fielding by a Tameside political activist, Raja Miah, and a group of supporters whom have become collectively known as ‘Raja’s Rabble’ or, simply, as they happily refer to themselves, ‘The Rabble’. All seriously, and it seems, obsessively, occupied by smearing the Labour Party and a number of its prominent members in the area. One of the The Rabble’s most prolific witterers is Jane Barker, a University of Manchester student researcher. She made the data breach complaint to the ICO, via Oldham Council, and has made a number of others of varying specification to the council, the Labour Party and then to the police.

Miah was kicked out of the same Party in August, 2019. His output on social media appears particularly attractive to a far-right audience and one of his main backers is Paul Errock, a local businessman and, from available screenshots, apparently a supporter of Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League (EDL). Another ubiquitous Miah camp follower, and a ‘subscriber’ who sends Miah money every month, is Garry Dunkerley, nearing the end of a six year jail sentence after conviction for burglary, involving a number of vulnerable old people amongst his victims. Dunkerley also has links to the EDL (read more here). He uses at least two pseudonyms on social media, including the notorious “Duggy Dunk” handle.

It has emerged that “Dunk” actually worked alongside Cllr Fielding for a period at the Tesco Superstore in Failsworth (where, in better times, the Full English Breakfast in the first floor cafeteria is heartily recommended). He has shown no remorse over his offending and, perversely, denies causing harm. The disgraceful output on social media should, very arguably, have led to his recall to prison whilst on licence.

Ms Barker (pictured below), much more feminist than far-right who also sends money to Raja Miah every month, having failed with her perceived grievances at both the council and Labour Party, then made complaints to the police about its local leader that appeared to include a number of very serious matters: Harassment, malicious communication and hate crime. Others, including Mark Wilkinson, a retired police officer turned probation officer, and Mohib Uddin, a tax inspector by day and self-styled ‘political analyst’ at other times, made similar allegations.

They appeared to have little factual or evidential basis, being centred on communications between Sean Fielding and the employers of Barker, Uddin and Wilkinson, but embellished a concurrent publicity stunt, centred around a petition organised by Miah, calling upon the Home Secretary to order the arrest of Sean Fielding. As one might expect of an action so ill-conceived, it gained little traction despite a frenetic campaign on social media by Raja and The Rabble to promote it. But its real purpose was, one might argue, to continue the smearing and campaign of harassment against Cllr Fielding – and to that extent it very likely succeeded.

Unlike Miah, born and spending his early life in Bradford and living in some splendour the upmarket village of Mossley, near Ashton-under-Lyne, since 2004, Sean is Oldham born and bred – and never lived, or worked, anywhere else. He was elected to serve the town in 2012 and won a party ballot for council leader in 2018, becoming the youngest in the country to do so.

In contrast, Raja Miah has never stood for public office and is most widely known for his association with two spectacularly failed free schools in Greater Manchester, presently a matter of lengthy and complex police investigation into multi-million pounds fraud allegations. There are also substantial concerns over very serious safeguarding failures at the Miah-run schools (read more here). The MP (and former leader of Oldham Council), Jim McMcMahon has come under relentless, and most unpleasant, attack from Miah and his acolytes ever since. But the Member for Oldham West and Royton, like Cllr Fielding a lifelong local man of solid, working class stock, is made of stern stuff and has repeatedly cut down the Man from Mossley on social media:

“In taking this case on, no-one could have foreseen the vengeance that would follow from Raja Miah and his associates. I know many decent people have been attacked, had their characters dragged through the mud, and felt deeply threatened by his actions. I know too well the impact this can have and the toll it can take but even knowing that I would still pursue this case, knowing what was to follow.

“Politics is about people, and the pupil, parents and staff (of the free schools) who have asked me to be their voice matter to me. I have no intention of letting them down.

“Of course, what follows is now is for the authorities to investigate. I sincerely hope without fear or favour”.

Very powerful, heartfelt commentary, whatever your political persuasion (for the avoidance of doubt this journalist has no affiliation with any political party): Its measured, thoughtful terms making it even more so in the face of the worst, completely unfounded, allegation that he covers up for child sex abuse in the town he has served for just under 20 years, and procures many others in public life to do so. The evidence is very clear: There was no cover-up. Quite the opposite, in fact (read more here).

A recent complaint to Facebook, by Jim McMahon, about the anti-semitic content on the Recusant Nine page, operated by Raja Miah, is set out in a highly detailed, well argued document in which I have been sighted.

In what is a bad to worse week for the Miah camp, it can now be revealed, exclusively, that all the various complaints made against Sean Fielding, to the police, have been marked with ‘No Further Action’. A matter of some relief, no doubt, to him and his family, friends and colleagues, however misconceived and ill-motivated they might have been. He says:

“I was never in any doubt that the allegations against me had no substance and were simply politically motivated, tit for tat complaints. However, the abuse of the criminal justice process, and waste of police time and resources that these investigations were, just so that my political opponents could post online that I was ‘under investigation’ and facing ‘imminent arrest’ is quite shocking. Indeed, it is a criminal offence in itself.

“I will continue to represent my constituents in Failsworth and attend to my wider responsibilities as Leader of the Council with the same enthusiasm and commitment as I always have. I will not be knocked off course by those who have nothing positive to contribute to our Borough, or the wider debate about its future, and whose agenda is simply to disrupt the operation of public services and make outrageous claims online in their quest for validation in the form of Facebook likes.”

The complaints made by Jane Barker to the Information Commissioner also met the same fate, unsurprisingly. As, of course, did those she made to the Council and Labour Party, previously. The Constituency Labour Party adjudicator describing one of her complaints as “mad”.

Which means that the sum of all the serial, vexatious complaints made by her, over the past six months or so, enthusiastically egged on by The Rabble is ZERO, nothing, zilch. Except, perhaps, an arrest for wasting police time? Not least as she has made several threats to at least one other local political commentator, Euan Stewart, to report him to the police (and/or her solicitors) over nothing higher than a difference of opinion on social media regarding information she had put into the public domain. The same police force asserted by Raja Miah as being partners in the alleged CSE cover-up.

Mark Wilkinson, whom along with his wife Kathleen, socialises with another local far-right totem, former UKIP councillor and known bully, Warren Bates (pictured below left with Mr and Mrs Wilkinson), is another serial and oppressive complainer who has, so far, drawn a blank. The Wilkinsons are the founders of the Failsworth Independent Party whose sole policy, and reason for being, appears to be ‘We don’t like Sean Fielding‘. Missing from the photograph is the aforementioned “Duggy Dunk”, another Failsworth man who interacts regularly on social media with these three.

Ex-Lib Dem councillor, Mohib Uddin, is in the same boat. Fond of posting ‘tick-tock‘ when making snide reference to Cllr Fielding on social media, he is now the one running out of time. A source close to him says that action taken by the LibDems to expel him from the Party was stayed, at his request, until the police investigation into the council leader concluded. So, Tameside’s leading ‘political analyst’, according to Raja Miah at least, is a failed councillor shunned by his own party and who has, willingly it seems, collected taxes for the Conservative government for the past 10 years.

Uddin, the Wilkinsons and Ms Barker are all on a list of Recusant Nine supporters submitted to Greater Manchester Police as an intelligence file. It identifies 70 out of the 114 people who send money to Raja Miah every month. Apart from those four named above, the rest of the list includes convicted criminals, EDL members (past or present), far right activists, Tommy Robinson supporters and social media trolls. All of which provides ample justification for raising queries with their employers. Particularly, those funded from the public purse or employed by the Crown.

Piling on the misery for Miah and The Rabble, his grotesque child grooming accusations against long-serving councillor and former Mayor, Riaz Ahmad have resulted, in the past week, in a climb down and a humiliating apology. All the deeply offensive posts have now been deleted. But in typical, sly Raja style, the apology was posted just before midnight last Friday.

Completing the Raja Miah nightmare, Deputy Leader of Oldham Council, Arooj Shah, mocked by The Rabble as “The COVID Queen” is well on the way to managing the town out of crisis as portfolio holder for response to the virus epidemic. In a quite remarkable turnaround, Oldham has gone from having the worst infection rate in Greater Manchester to the lowest. In typical fashion, she deflects praise on to her team and just gets on with the job. Cllr Shah was, in fact, the subject of the first Oldham article I wrote last year. It seems a lifetime away, right now. A scathing take down of the evil harassment campaign mounted by Miah and his minions (read in full here) propagated it seems, mostly, because one of her numerous roles in public life is parliamentary assistant to Jim McMahon. The MP remains The Rabble’s number one ‘target’ for abuse.

Regrettably, the dedicated, very hard-working elected female official, another born and bred Oldhamer, is still the subject of mindless accusations and distorted truths. Arooj says: “The unprovoked attacks have been, and continue to be, incredibly difficult for me and those around me, albeit dealing with misogynists isn’t exactly new territory”.

This emphasis on attacking females, highlighted by Cllr Shah, manifested itself yet again recently with a left-field attack on Deputy Mayor, Cllr Jenny Harrison, a very popular retired school teacher and senior manager (pictured below centre with Mayor Ginny Alexander on her right, Arooj Shah to her left). But Jenny wasn’t taking that lying down and gave The Man from Mossley a proper pasting on social media. Her brave stance has emboldened others, previously fearful of standing up to Raja Miah and the inevitable smearing that would follow.

Other females repeatedly derogated by Miah, over past year or so, include Debbie Abrahams MP, journalists Jennifer Williams and Charlotte Green, together with nationally known justice campaigner, and now lawyer, Gail Hadfield Grainger.

An objective reader coming to the end of this piece might well scratch their head in bemusement and say how on earth has Raja Miah, and his motley band of hangers-on, been allowed to get away with this obnoxious, hateful behaviour for so long? As one who sits in the press seats at Magistrates’ and Crown Courts (or logs in via CVP these days) it certainly has me completely baffled: Efforts to persuade the three very senior officers with locus in the Borough, T/DCC Mabs Hussain, ACC Nick Bailey and C/Supt Chris Allsop have so far produced no visible response. But the pressure to do no more than perform the job, for which they are paid handsomely, will continue to be applied in every lawful way possible. They must be in no doubt about that. Victims of the class of crimes and/or civil torts perpetrated by Raja Miah, and others, notably his lieutenant-in-chief, the potty-mouthed Anita Lowe, should not be left alone to seek civil remedies or repeated complaints to social media operators.

I, for one, am old enough to remember when keeping the Queen’s Peace was a job for the police service and one they were keen and proud to undertake.

The highly opinionated but scarcely literate Mrs Lowe, who lived in Failsworth before moving to Littlemoor four years ago, is believed to be behind a number of other anonymous “trolling” Twitter and Facebook accounts. This is her main social media vehicle at present. A file is being prepared for Greater Manchester Police accompanying complaints by way of the Protection from Harassment and Communications Acts:

Remarkably, this abusive trolling account is followed on Twitter by former ITV Granada Reports journalist, Matt O’Donoghue whom, most surprisingly, but regrettably, has ‘previous’ for attaching himself to The Rabble’s cause. Conversely and perversely, he has, in the past, said that he ‘deeply admires’ the investigative journalism on this website.

In an extraordinary reply to this article,  O’Donoghue claims he was ‘inadvertently following a troll’. ‘Sometimes’, he says, ‘I just follow back without doing the due diligence that I should’. Matt does not explain why he is also attached to a number of other abusive, far-right, racist social media accounts, most notably ‘Oldham Eye’. He claims, without specification or evidence, that his exposure as being adjacent to the cause of Raja Miah, the false Oldham CSE cover-up narrative (read more here), and the consequent attacks on MPs and local councillors, is ‘a twisted mission to undermine me’. The reply includes no apology, no contrition, no mention of the victims of the relentless trolling and no undertaking to detach himself from the group and put the record straight.

All the more remarkable, given his close friendship with the aforementioned Jen Williams, a regular target for smearing by Miah and his cohort.

Page last updated: Sunday 21st February, 2021 at 1055 hours

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

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

© Neil Wilby 2015-2021. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Review of 2020 – The two that got away?

In this, the first of a short series reviewing the past year, a second look is taken at two cases of miscreant police officers being shielded by senior management in their respective police forces.

In August, a very powerful story was published on this website. The latest in a lengthy series of exclusives dating back to early 2018.

It was a relentless, excoriating take-down of an organisation that staggers from crisis to crisis, scandal to scandal. It’s title was propitious, given what was to happen within Greater Manchester Police less than four months later: ‘Rotten to its core‘ (read in full here).

Within that piece there were exclusive and sensational revelations about yet another grotesque ‘cover-up’ by GMP. The information was triangulated from a number of very well connected policing and media sources – and confirmed, to a very limited extent, by the force press office.

In short, a serving police officer, attached to an elite unit and who cannot be named for legal reasons, committed very serious criminal offences in the early part of this year and has yet to face any form of justice.

A member of the public caught with significant quantities of Class A drugs about his person, not once but twice, would have appeared at the local magistrates’ court within days of being apprehended. Especially, if there were child safeguarding issues also in play.

Two weeks later, there was a sequel, headlined ‘Even more rotten‘ (read in full here). Another exclusive, it has also received no press coverage elsewhere.

Central to the piece was a letter sent to the Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester by Gail Hadfield Grainger, a nationally known justice campaigner. The turgid response from the perennially ineffective Beverley Hughes told little, apart from confirming that ‘a criminal investigation was ongoing’.

Gail’s stake in the case is that the subject officer was a significant part of the police operation, codenamed Shire, that led to the death of her partner, Anthony Grainger. He was also active in the run-up to the public inquiry into the shooting that took place in 2017, reflecting his key role.

The now departed, and disgraced, Ian Hopkins, an unmitigated disaster as a chief constable, was said to be anxious not to give the bereaved Grainger family another stick with which to beat him and the force. Particularly, in the light of the scathing public inquiry report published in July, 2019 (read here).

The revelation that one of Operation Shire‘s key officers was corrupt, and a drug dealer, would have piled on the agony for both GMP and Hopkins. Not at all aided by the further revelation that the predecessor investigation to Shire, Operation Blyth, also had a now-convicted drug dealer in its midst.

It is worth repeating yet again, for emphasis, that the public interest is not served at all well by senior police officers interfering with justice, simply to preserve their own reputation. On the watch of Ian Hopkins it was not, sadly, a rare occurrence. Greatly aided by zero oversight by the Mayor, Andy Burnham and his Deputy Mayor – and the so-called ‘police watchdogs’ who simply sat on their collective hands whilst the country’s second largest police force descended into corrupt chaos.

Will the New Year bring justice for the victims of the corrupt, drug dealing, Greater Manchester detective? For the moment it seems not, but with the police force now in ‘Special Measures‘, as ordered by the Home Secretary, then just maybe a more rigorous scrutiny of this troubling matter can be undertaken.

The second strand to this piece features an article published at the beginning of December detailing another police ‘cover-up’, this time from across the Pennine hills. Great care has been taken not to identify the senior officer, beyond the fact that s/he is serving with one of the Yorkshire forces.

A large enough pool to prevent jigsaw identification, although the officer’s identity within police circles appears widely known, judging from the unprecedented feedback received privately following publication of the article.

There is no criminal offence involved in this particular case, but allegations of an overt racist act that could have far reaching consequences, not only for the employing force but for the wider police service, whose obsession with diversity and inclusion is all consuming. Which spawned the headline ‘Say one thing, do another‘ (read in full here).

Large amongst those two-faced organisations, who routinely discredit themselves by their proximity to such covering up, is the much ridiculed College of Policing (read more here). They had the audacity to take the miscreant officer into their Ryton-on-Dunsmore headquarters for a week, knowing that, at the time, s/he was banned from all other police premises.

This, presumably, to give the appearance that all was well – and throw enquiring journalists, and fellow officers, away from the scent of corruption.

The actions of the subject police force, since the exclusive article was published on this website, give all the appearance of downplaying the incident and desperately wanting it to go away. There has, for example, been no referral of the alleged gross misconduct to the police watchdog. A mandatory requirement in the prevailing circumstances. They, in turn, despite being very aware of what is alleged, have not called in the investigation under their statutory powers.

There has been no intervention from the subject force’s police and crime commissioner, either, despite both s/he and her/his staff being highly aware of this troubling case and its impact on the electorate in the force area.

Once again, the public are ill served by these ‘top brass’ shenanigans and concealing racists in the ranks goes very much against the grain. Not to mention the huge amounts of taxpayer funds wasted on payments to officers on gardening leave or suspension.

But, without a greater public outcry, or a whistleblower prepared to speak out publicly, and with compelling evidence to boot, those same very senior officers will continue to laugh in the face of journalists attempting to hold them to account.

The outrage of decent, genuine officers, past and present, in all three Yorkshire forces, continues unabated. This is the comment of one, a number of others are couched in rather more forthright language: ‘Inevitably, front line morale will be sapped once more by poor judgement of our superiors and lack of recognisable leadership. I don’t want to work with or for a racist’.

Page last updated: Wednesday 30th December, 2020 at 1205 hours

Photo Credits: Independent Office for Police Conduct

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

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

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. 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.

Part-time judge faces Bar Standards complaint

At a remote case management hearing on Monday 14th December, 2020, an Employment Tribunal judge in Leeds was told that a serving West Yorkshire Police officer, Sergeant Umer Saeed has lodged a formal complaint against a well known Leeds barrister, Olivia Checa-Dover (writes Neil Wilby).

It concerns a disputed account of a conversation between Sgt Saeed’s barrister at the time, Adam Willoughby, and Miss Checa-Dover, that took place on 17th January, 2019. She was representing WYP in those same Tribunal proceedings in which Sgt Saeed is claiming racial and religious discrimination against his employer (read more here).

The hearing of the claim was listed to open on 16th January, 2019 but that was, in the event, set aside as a reading day and, moreover, the Tribunal panel was aware that the parties were in negotiations with a view to settling the claim.

It was during those discussions that the subject conversation took place, on the following day.

It is said by Mr Willoughby that a coercive threat to end Sgt Saeed’s career as an operational police officer was made by Miss Checa-Dover. A matter she robustly denies, having an entirely different recollection of what took place between them.

There were no independent witnesses to the conversation, although Mr Willoughby relies upon detailed contemporaneous notes made in his ‘blue book’.

The evidential aspects of the dispute between counsel were fully ventilated in the hearing earlier this week as both barristers, having recused themselves from the claim, were subjected to lengthy and highly forensic cross-examination.

Solicitor Victoria Clegg also gave evidence for the police, which was very largely procedural. She is not the subject of complaint by her WYP colleague, Sgt Saeed. Essentially, Mrs Cleg confirmed that Miss Checa-Dover did not have instructions either from her or the chief constable to say the things she allegedly put to Mr Willoughby.

Although no reporting restrictions are in place, a full account of those proceedings is being delayed until Judge Knowles has made his determination on the present matters in issue. Those include whether to consolidate two further claims made by Sgt Saeed, concerning other detriments arising by way of the conduct of the defence of the claim by WYP, namely victimisation and disability discrimination, together with the original claim.

The hearing over-ran and it was not possible to hear final submissions from newly appointed counsel Dijen Basu QC (for Sgt Saeed) and David Jones (for WYP). The parties, and the judge, decided, after a short discussion, that those remaining matters could be satisfactorily dealt with on paper. It is expected that judgment will be handed down towards the end of January, 2021.

What emerged in evidence from Mr Willoughby and Miss Checa-Dover, some of it highly controversial, to say the least, will be reported alongside the judge’s findings, in what is an exceptional and sensitive case.

The status of Sgt Saeed’s complaint to the Bar Standards Board, made in March 2019, was not discussed in the hearing. It is assumed that any actions by the BSB have been stayed, pending the fact finding of Judge Knowles. They do not comment on individual cases and Sgt Saeed is reluctant to give any further details.

Umer Saeed is a nationally known figure in Black and Muslim staff associations. He is Chair of the West Yorkshire Black Police Association, and General Secretary and a Cabinet Member of the National Black Police Association. He is also a trained Police Federation representative and speaks four languages; Arabic, Punjabi, Slovak and Urdu. He joined the police service in June, 1999, spending most of his career in specialist teams, and has a BSc degree in Business Administration and Management. He is presently negotiating with WYP over study for a much coveted Master In Business Administration (MBA) qualification.

Adam Willoughby is the Head of Sports Law and Deputy Head of Employment Law at Broadway House Chambers in Leeds. He is described as “an impressive advocate” with “exceptional analytical ability”.

Olivia Checa-Dover is a police law specialist with KBW Chambers, much favoured by West Yorkshire Police. It is said that “she has an exceptionally sharp mind and an eye for detail“. She also sits as a legally qualified chair in police disciplinary hearings and was appointed as a Recorder (part-time judge) in April, 2019.

She represents WYP in another highly controversial, fiercely contested civil claim brought by Bradford GP, Dr Abdul Rashid, in which the force lost out at the High Court, on appeal (read more here). Mr Justice Lavender found that Dr Rashid had been unlawfully arrested in March, 2012, overturning a highly criticised County Court judgment of Mr Recorder Ben Nolan QC.

A hearing, to assess the amount of damages Dr Rashid will be paid, is expected to be listed for July, 2021.

The conduct of the police has been the subject of fierce criticism throughout those proceedings and the events that preceded them.

Miss Checa-Dover deleted her Twitter social media account shortly after publication of this article. Her chambers, KBW, blocked the author without any interaction beyond a single, innocuous tweet posted almost three months ago (see here).

This is a developing news story and will be updated. Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter here, and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook here.

Page last updated: Tuesday 22nd December, 2020 at 1135 hours

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

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

Picture credit:

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Hidden in plain sight

Written by a former Greater Manchester police officer, retired Inspector David Sutcliffe, an email circulated amongst key influencers in regional and central government has piled even more pressure on beleaguered Mayor Andy Burnham and his chief constable, Ian Hopkins.

Others caught in the crossfire are Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling, about much has already been written elsewhere on this website (read more here), and the most senior civilian in the force, Assistant Chief Officer Lynn Potts.

This is the full text of the email, published on social media on 14th December, 2020, edited for typos, syntax and legal reasons [text in square brackets]:

“Home Secretary / Greater Manchester MPs,

“You will all be aware of the recent national criticism of Greater Manchester Police and their crime recording and victim care issues. I noted that GM Mayor Andy Burnham and his Deputy, Bev Hughes, both feigned ignorance as to this issue. This can only be due to laziness, incompetence or [alleged] corruption, or a combination of all three.

“In 2014, I was a police inspector with numerous commendations for bravery/leadership and arrests made. I was mentioned in a Parliamentary debate after being the first inspector in the country to utilise the Dispersal Order and Premises Closure powers. Also, unlike [some] senior officers, I worked on operations and went out on my own and arrested people.

“After refusing an officer extra overtime, I was then subjected to a number of criminal allegations. The IPCC investigated and exonerated me on all counts, whereupon I tried to rid the [Greater Manchester] Police of [allegedly] corrupt individuals. They, however, and a number of senior officers (who had potential criminal culpability) were never subjected to any scrutiny and all documentation they have was either lost/destroyed or is being illegally withheld.

“I have spoken in person to Mr Burnham about this [alleged] corruption, posed a public question at one of his “Ask the Mayor” sessions (about his lack of scrutiny of senior officers and their actions within GMP), which is recorded on the internet, and sent him numerous documents detailing blatant criminality within the Force.

“Burnham and Bev Hughes’s response is [allegedly] to ignore everything. The persons perpetrating criminality were sent the evidential documents by Bev Hughes to reply to. So incompetent is she that she got those whom the allegations were against to provide the information for her reply!!!

“DCC Pilling, the man in charge of Professional Standards (and the crime recording issue) within GMP, has [allegedly] ensured that all evidence relating to his Department’s criminality, and that of senior officers with potential criminal allegations against the, has been destroyed/lost, or illegally withheld.

“Pilling authorised the promotion of senior officers who had potentially [and allegedly] committed serious criminal offences and ensured that investigations in relation to serious criminality by GMP officers had been quashed – and that as to whether racial bias had [allegedly] been a factor as to whether an officer was investigated.

“ACO Lynn Potts (who had a major part to play in this debacle) and the Chief Constable have also not disclosed any documents, as required to do so under GDPR.

“Hughes and Burnham have also [allegedly] broken the law in relation to non-disclosure under GDPR.

“Pilling’s attitude is typical of the arrogance and [alleged] criminality that pervades within the senior echelons of GMP: “lets go to court”, where they can waste public money to protect the indefensible.

“I have previously pointed out to Andy Burnham that more money has been spent hiding corruption in this case than would have been required to solve the city’s homelessness problem. Mayor Burnham espouses the rights of the people of Liverpool , but when it comes to the people of Greater Manchester he uses the same tactics as he constantly criticised South Yorkshire Police for, to obstruct justice.

“Burnham / Pilling/ Hopkins/ Hughes ( who are all of the main protagonists in this [present] crime recording debacle), you are all unfit to hold public office and your adherence to the Nolan principles is [allegedly] non-existent. Your attempts to evade any culpability are sickening.

“I am sure that you will pay lawyers to try to silence me. But instead why not publicly debate the issue? Let’s reveal all the evidence (including that you have illegally withheld) and let the people of Greater Manchester judge. We could do this next week!!!! You can get your well paid advisors and researchers to assist you and I will tell the truth!!!! If not, I hope that next year’s Mayoral elections are not cancelled, so that I will have a public platform to expose your ineptitude.

“I have attached a copy of the IPCC report in relation to my personal exoneration and as you can see that there are a number of potential liars initially exposed and I can assure you that there are even more involved in the subsequent “cover up”.

I hope this assists, David Sutcliffe.”

Those familiar with the inner workings of GMP and the Mayor’s office, including me (writes Neil Wilby) will not be, in any way, surprised at the contents of Mr Sutcliffe’s blistering condemnation. An officer highly rated by those who served with him in Stockport (J) Division.

Disclosure failings by both are well-evidenced, repeated and scandalous. Either by way of the Data Protection Act, General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) or Freedom of Information Act. The simple fact is, proven many times over, that Messrs Burnham and Hopkins place themselves above Parliament and it’s long overdue for the House to redress the balance and put the operations of both into special measures.

As for the rest of the Sutcliffe allegations; incompetence, corruption, cover-up, cronyism and racism, Burnham and Hopkins (or Mrs Hughes or Pilling) cannot feign ignorance of them, either. Particularly, by way of this piece, ‘Catalogue of Policing Scandals that shame the two-faced Mayor‘ (read in full here) published in August, 2019.

Grounded in its entirety upon protected disclosures to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) made by a well known police whistleblower.

The force’s horrendous crime recording and victim care failings received wide publicity very recently (read more here and here).

The headline of the first linked piece was very apposite in present circumstances: The Beginning of the End. For that is what it is, for both the Mayor and chief constable. Their positions are untenable as public confidence ebbs away and the Home Secretary has expressed serious concerns, in writing, over the actions, or more accurately, inactions of both.

Burnham’s response to Priti Patel was to claim that an excoriating report by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, the latest in a lengthening line and at the centre of the most recent scandal, also one of many, “presented an unfair picture”.

The Mayor also, incredibly, sought to defend the disastrous IT Transformation Programme, known colloquially as iOPS. The system has been plagued with problems since its much-delayed launch in July, 2019. A budgeted cost of £27 million is expected to, eventually, be closed off at a figure closer to £100 million (read more here).

Serving officers claim on social media that some of the software problems relating to operational matters are incapable of remedy. The force, and the contractors responsible for installation, commissioning and maintenance, deny that such problems exist.

Within hours of this article being published, the local and regional press reported another complete outage of the iOPS system, with call centre operators once again having to take down crime details on pieces of paper. In the force’s response, which sought to downplay the issue, the word ‘victim’ did not appear

This is a developing news story and will be updated. Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.

Page last updated: Wednesday 15th December, 2020 at 1245 hours

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

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

Picture credit: PA

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Criminals on the loose

Earlier this week, a watchdog report revealed another series of grotesque failures by beleaguered Greater Manchester Police (GMP).

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary found that, in just one year, the force had failed to record 80,000 crimes in the year ending June, 2020 (an average of 220 per day). Thousands of others cases were also without proper investigation (read more here).

This is just one of them. Leaving three dangerous criminals, who had, apparently, also offended shortly prior to the events so graphically described here.

The response to this letter issued today by Gail Hadfield Grainger, and copied to a wide number of senior police officers, policing stakeholders and elected representatives, including the Home Secretary, will be a good indicator as to whether the “robust measures” allegedly now put in place, by GMP, to prevent such calamities are, in fact, effective:

“To the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police,

“My name is Gail Hadfield Grainger, my contact details are stated at the top of this letter.

“The principal purposes of this letter are (i) to complain about the way that the incident described below was handled by your police officers and (ii) to insist that a proportionate criminal investigation be instigated by experienced detectives, at least one of whom needs to be of managerial rank.

“This complaint is NOT suitable for local resolution. I will not be fobbed off. The matter requires rigorous investigation and those responsible properly held to account. That includes the supervisors, managers, commanders and chiefs who are responsible for the culture in which constables and civilian staff can treat victims of crime in this appalling manner.

“The Crime reference number for this incident is: CRI/06FF/0007643/20


“The particulars are as follows:

“In the evening of the 9th April 2020, two men attended my house to buy a mobile phone that I had been using for the previous year and was registered with my mobile phone network provider. I had advertised this phone for £440 on Gumtree. 

“When they arrived, I answered the door and asked if they were here to look at the mobile phone. They stated that they were. I said “wait there, I will go get it”. 

“As I turned around to go and get the phone, they unexpectedly followed me in – this made me feel extremely uncomfortable as I did NOT invite them in at any time.

“I did not express or imply permission for them to enter.

“I was at home with my two children, fortunately my partner was at my home address too. 

“The two men were Irish, with a strong Irish accent. They made small talk in my home, whilst one of the men stated that he was to “get the money from the car”. 

“He left the house.

“The remaining Irish man had the mobile phone and box etc in his hand, he asked me if the phone needed ‘wiping’ – I explained it was ready for sale and my details were ‘wiped’ from the phone. 

“This man slowly edged to my front door saying that he was wondering what was taking his friend so long to get the money. 

“It was at this point, he edged towards my front door, grabbed my handbag and ran to the silver/green colour Renault Megane, with dents visible on the bodywork and an Irish number plate. 

“My handbag contained my purse, cards and cash. My ring and watch was also in my purse. In the bag was also my make-up bag and my pencil case, Dictaphone and much more. My main worry at that time was whether I had left my spare key in my purse, also, and that the men would return to the house when I was sleeping in the house alone with my two children. 

“This fear lasted many days until I could get extra security on my house including cameras. 

“It was then that I chased the man to his car, screaming as I did so. The car had the door open and engine running ready for a quick getaway. They clearly pre-planned this robbery. 

“My partner got in his car and drove in the same direction, he spotted the car approaching Kearsley roundabout, at the Farnworth entrance to the roundabout.

“My partner followed them round Kearsley roundabout, down the slip road that takes you to to the M61 briefly, before joining the M60 and off at Junction 17 at Whitefield/Prestwich.  

“Whilst approaching the slip road at 50mph (the Irish men in the Renault Megane were travelling much faster as the temporary speed camera flashed) they purposely tried to ‘slam’ the side of their motor vehicle intentionally in a reckless manner into my partner’s car, almost causing him to have a serious crash as he tried his best to avoid the attack in the motor vehicles  – I would class this as attempted murder. 

“Their intention were clear, they committed another criminal act in order to evade being apprehended. 

“My partner decided that a handbag and phone are not worth losing his life over and returned back to my home.

“When he returned home, he was shaken and extremely distressed at the events, as was I, knowing that these men had been in my home, brazenly, without any consideration of the distress that it caused myself and my family. 

“It was at this point I rang the police, told them what had happened and described as much as I could. I was shaken, scared and expected the police to take action. Especially as I provided enough detail to the officer on the phone to warrant an arrest and a charge – given the circumstances. 

“I provided the IMEI number of the phone I sold to enable the police to track the phone should the two Irish men turn it on.I gave a description of the two men, the two phone numbers that they used (which could have easily been located through cell site analysis). I gave the route they took, the speed  camera that flashed (which would have revealed the VRN) and, as I found out by placing a post on Facebook (warning people in my local community to be vigilant as there were two criminals about), these same two males had already robbed someone and damaged a car when they stole the door mirrors from it.

“Given my past experience with the police, I am extremely hesitant to call them over anything. But, due to the seriousness of the crimes committed against me, I felt I had no other option than to phone the police and believe that they would investigate. As you can see from this letter, that was not done. I was left feeling scared, anxious and distressed, but expected officers to call and take a statement from me at the very least. I have previously experienced serious systemic and operational failings from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and I have been expressly informed by the senior officers at GMP that these systemic and operational failings had been address and rectified. That is clearly not the case. 

“I believe there is one of two reasons why this crime was not investigated: Malfeasance, due to who I am and my relationship with GMP or serious incompetence that pervades the whole of Greater Manchester Police.

“Given the recent news articles coming to light such as this one:  –  it shows that it is not just me, but approximately 220 cases per day have not been investigated properly over the last year.

“I am distressed at the  thought of the perpetrators still being at large and that they have got away with so serious a crime, despite of all the detailed information that I gave. The actions of GMP (or rather lack of them) have caused significant loss and damage and may well give rise to a civil claim against the chief constable. I am taking appropriate advice on this issue.

“Since this burglary (whilst I was at home), my insurance company have attempted to contact the police for further information of the events, providing the crime reference number, but have told me that there is a lack of information available. So, I rang the police and asked for an update of what is happening in regards to the investigation – here is a synopsis of the call made on the 3rd of December 202 at 17.08hrs:Hannah PC 72436….. informed me that the case was indeed opened on the 9th of April 2020 and closed on the 10th of Aril 2020 and no investigation took place. 

“The offence was listed as ‘theft’ only. 

“There were no further lines of inquiry – which is peculiar as I didn’t call till the late hours of the 9th April 2020.

“The case was reopened briefly on the 10th of June 2020 and closed that same day. I believe that this is when I called for an update and to see when someone would be calling to take a witness statement  from me and witnesses – which would lead to the establishment of the facts of the case, in turn leading to the identification of the criminals – even though I provided ample enough information on the night for a prompt and effective investigation to take place. 

“I was told that NO investigating officer put their name to the case as NO investigation was started. 

“If I was to find out anything more about the steps taken (or lack of) Then I would need to contact the records management unit on 0161 856 2529. 

“There were NO steps to investigate taken

“GMP have failed their duty in many ways – for a crime of this class the public are entitled to  expect nothing less than an independent, prompt and IMPARTIAL investigation. Unfortunately, due to the INCOMPETENCE of Greater Manchester Police NOTHING at all was done in relation to the crime that was committed, including the attempt by dangerous criminals to cause very serious harm to my partner, at the very least. The police failed to record the relevant details of the case. 

“They failed to act on the information given 

“They failed to interview any key witnesses promptly OR at all

“The police failed to collect ANY evidence that may have led to the identification of those responsible and punishment accordingly. 

“Furthermore: This ill treatment by GMP has caused psychological distress to myself and my children. 

“I am in fear that if I ever need the police in an urgent matter (as I did previously) not only will they NOT attend promptly – but the police will breach their investigatory duty to act. 

“I believe GMP had an operational duty to investigate and this duty was breached

“Next time it could well be a murder, instead of an aggravated burglary or attempted murder/manslaughter (which your officers appear to have mis-recorded as a theft to minimise the need to investigate, raising a different range of performance issues).

“This matter now needs to be handled expeditiously and I expect to hear from a senior officer, of at least superintending rank, within the next 7 days, to discuss the best way forward from this horrific ordeal with a view to formulating an action plan that will lead to the apprehending of these dangerous criminals.

“I have copied in all the stakeholders whom I consider need to be aware of these grotesque failings of GMP.


Yours sincerely

Gail Hadfield Grainger”

As set out in the letter, the sender is well known to GMP. Her partner, Anthony Grainger, was shot by them in 2012. At the resultant public inquiry, the force was very heavily criticised over a long list of failings and the outfall from that still rumbles on (read here).

Was that a factor in the appalling treatment of Gail over this shocking experience at her home? We will see, once the layers of incompetence are pulled back and a proper investigation has taken place.

The signs are not promising, however. 24 hours after sending the letter not one GMP officer had been in touch with her, either by phone or email.

Another man, with now a great deal, to lose has also not spoken to Gail, or contacted her in any other way. Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Mayor, has let her down very badly over the outcome of the Grainger Inquiry, after making false promises on network television (read more here). Accordingly, her hopes are not at all high that he will hold the chief constable to account over this latest issue.

Gail, measured and articulate as always, can be watched talking about her horrendous experience in a short video clip here.

This is a developing news story and will be updated. Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.

Page last updated: Sunday 12th December, 2020 at 1045 hours

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

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

Picture credit: ITV Granada

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The beginning of the end

In August last year, I assisted in breaking one of the biggest policing scandals in recent times. ITV led their regional news bulletin with this package (view here) and it went out later across the network.

It concerned a technology upgrade at one of the country’s biggest police forces that had gone badly wrong. On the evidence it appears that the original budget estimate of £27 million was now dwarfed by actual costs of £80 million and rising (read more here).

More crucially, it was putting officers’ and public lives at risk, according to the local Police Federation Chair, Stuart Berry.

A furious chief constable, Ian Hopkins, tried to deflect criticism and play down the defects of the system known colloquially as iOPS (Integrated Operational Policing System) and monumental extra cost to the taxpayer.

Allowing his force to ‘beta test’ a module of the system known as ‘Police Works’ had backfired grotesquely.

One journalist/broadcaster who criticised iOPS publicly, quite correctly describing it as ‘a disaster’, was pursued by Hopkins in an ugly vendetta and lost his job as a result. The out of control chief described me as ‘an odious man‘ for having the temerity to go public with a damning document, leaked to me, that revealed the scale and reach of the technology failings.

Earlier today, it was revealed that the new IT system was largely responsible for the failure to record more than 80,000 crimes in the year ending June, 2020 (an average of 220 per day). Thousands of cases were also without proper investigation say Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC).

The watchdog say that beleaguered Greater Manchester Police‘s (GMP) service to victims of crime was a “serious cause of concern”. Ms Billingham might well have said service was virtually non-existent if she had actually spoken to some.

In its routine ‘jam tomorrow’ response, Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling said it had “robust plans” to address the issues and, incredibly, sought to blame the CO-VID19 crisis for the problems.

Robust plans is, broadly, the response to every other crisis or scandal that besets GMP, on an almost weekly basis. It is police management speak for ‘cover our a***s’.

DCC Pilling is at the very heart of most of the more serious force failings. Not least this one, upon which I reported extensively, concerning the outfall from the Grainger Inquiry (read here).

During the period reviewed by HMIC, it was estimated that GMP had recorded 77.7% of reported crimes, a reduction of 11.3% from the corresponding period in 2018, prior to the launch of iOPS. Previous HMIC inspections of GMP in 2016 and 2018 were also critical of crime recording practices and were very largely ignored by the force leadership.

The toothless watchdog also noted that one in five of all crimes and one in four violent crimes reported to GMP were not recorded – and found officers prematurely closed some investigations on the false premise that victims did not support police action.

Zoe Billingham, who signed off the HMIC inspection, says: “In too many of these cases, the force did not properly record evidence that the victim supported this decision,

She added, “It is simply not good enough that, despite being urged by the watchdog to improve in 2016, concerns have not been addressed for over four years”.

Here is a graphic and prime example of a case where the investigation was closed just 12 hours after it was reported where the allegations include aggravated burglary and attempted murder. Good descriptions of the perpetrators and their vehicle were given to the call handler (read in full here).

A further inspection by HMIC is scheduled to take place within the next six months. Whistleblowers say that the problems inherent in iOPS are so deep rooted that they may never be fixed without ripping out PoliceWorks and starting again. A matter repeatedly denied by the force, the suppliers and the contractors involved in the installation and implementation of the system.

The force has NOT referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct over these serious failings.

Greater Manchester’s Deputy Mayor for Policing, Beverley Hughes, said the HMIC findings were “extremely disappointing”, but has given no indication of any holding to account of the chief constable over these latest catastrophic revelations. She sees her role, and has done since the day she was appointed, of pouring oil on troubled waters, making excuses and covering up for Ian Hopkins. That, essentially, is how the force has descended into such a desperate state.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, is as usual, missing in action when these class of scandals reach the public domain (read more here). Trains, trams and cycle paths take priority over the risk to safety of every single one of his constituents via an utterly failed police force in the region.

He also approved a new two year contract, negotiated by his Deputy, for his perennially disgraced chief constable, at the very height of the iOPS, crime recording, risk to victims and officers scandal.

When asked, during a recent CO_VID19 press conference, the Mayor refused to confirm whether he maintained confidence in Ian Hopkins or whether his contract will be renewed in June, 2021.

The Police Federation, for their part, appear to have been absent from any criticism of iOPS since the time that problems were first identified.

Also absent since the scandal broke, and now routine when the force comes under fire, was CC Hopkins (read more here). An ugly trait made many times worse by being first on the scene if there is an personal glory to be squeezed out of any given situation.

The HMIC report can be read in full here. Following its publication, the Home Secretary has written to the Mayor to express her concern, not just over iOPS but the other reported failings of the force, and demand sight of the chief constable’s action plan to recover the situation.

It is the beginning of the end for Ian Hopkins. Andy Burnham has also belatedly realised that the failure to hold the worst chief constable in the country to account will cost him the Mayoral election in May, 2021.

This is a developing news story and will be updated. Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.

Page last updated: Saturday 11th December, 2020 at 0645 hours

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

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

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

An exercise in futility

This is the seventh article I have written since I first became involved in a journalistic scrutiny of the local council, and the police, in Oldham. A large Borough that forms part of the Greater Manchester region and incorporates a sizeable chunk of the old West Riding of Yorkshire (writes Neil Wilby).

The fifth was published last week (read here) the sixth is, as yet, unpublished. Delayed due to the CO-VID19 virus epidemic ‘lockdown’ and the consequent impact on securing documents and other evidence.

The first two articles, focusing on the output of a political activist based in the neighbouring Borough of Tameside, Raja Miah, created a level of abuse never seen before in almost 40 years: I joined my first local newspaper in 1981.

A neutral examination of a series of allegations made against Oldham Council’s Deputy Leader, Councillor (Cllr) Arooj Shah, concluded that she had been targeted by Miah, and the groups with which he aligns himself, in an unattractive, frequently personalised campaign that gives the appearance of politically motivated harassment (read more here). A matter presently under consideration by the local police force.

The second article highlighted yet more seriously unpleasant, largely fact-free allegations made by Miah against two bereaved families (read more here). No apology or contrition followed, just a cranking up of the abuse and mindless attacks on anyone who challenged the increasingly desperate Raja narrative. Particularly if they have association with his main targets. In this particular case, the friendship between nationally acclaimed justice campaigner, Gail Hadfield Grainger and Cllr Shah.

The third article (read more here) highlighted abuse against two renowned child sexual abuse investigators and a well known local survivor of such a horrific crime who had the temerity, according to Miah, to meet me and discuss the wider situation in her home town. A disgraceful, very public, wholly unedifying attack on that survivor followed. Not just by Raja, but at least one other within the zealous rabble that surround him.

The fourth article was an exposé of one of the key members of ‘Raja’s Rabble’, Kerry Skelhorn, who marauds on social media as “Rocky Skelshaw” spitting out her own brand of venom (read more here). Miss Skelhorn claims she reported me to the local police at the same time (19th October, 2020) for alleged harassment and obtained a crime number. As of today, 8th December, 2020, I have not been contacted by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) on this particular issue. Nor would I expect to hear from them, apart from the conduct of routine journalistic enquiries. Her allegations are without evidential foundation and, in my informed submission, a waste of police time.

As with her local hero, Miss Skelshaw saw the article not as lessons to be learned, and one from which she could moderate her outrageous behaviour, but as a platform for ramping up the abuse. Notably against Cllr Sean Fielding, the Leader of Oldham Council, who took on the mantle of one of his predecessors, James McMahon in May 2019. The leadership was vacated after ‘Jim from Oldham’ was elected as Member of Parliament for Oldham West and Royton in December, 2015. He has been the principal target of the Rabble’s incessant attacks against the Council and, more generally, the Labour Party for over 18 months.

Jim McMahon features centrally in the fifth article (read here), which is a forensic examination of the fatuous, contrived, counter-intuitive allegation, amongst others made by Raja Miah, of child sex abuse ‘cover-up’ by the MP. Centred around the infamous ‘Lee Rigby’ email sent by BBC Manchester reporter, Kevin Fitzpatrick, to McMahon, and others, in 2013, just before the fallen soldier’s funeral in the town.

McMahon will be mentioned more peripherally in the sixth article, which shines a light on the allegations, by Miah, that the East Lancashire mill town is ‘owned’ and run by ‘Asian Cartels’. For which, provisionally, there is very little evidence – and the rantings of the Rabble appear to simply capitalise on the smearing of their critics, or those who choose to stand up against them.

That is an elongated, but necessary, pre-amble to the present piece which examines the ramping up of the recent attacks against Cllr Fielding.

We start from behind the line as it is well rehearsed, on Twitter, that I have, previously, been critical of the council leader’s output on that social media platform and he, in turn, taking exception to those posts. Sean Fielding is a young man going places, there is little doubt about that; but some of his tweets do betray his youth and inexperience. Seized upon gleefully by his critics. The ‘Captain Underpants’ saga, for example, having provided some light relief over the past few months (read more here).

The Labour politician issued a statement in response to what he dubbed ‘Undie-gate’, adding that he was known for his ‘dry and self-deprecating sense of humour’. 

But, despite those mutually adverse views of politician and journalist, after the publication of the investigation into the allegations against Cllr Shah (and not before, it must be stressed), he accepted a routine email invitation to speak on the telephone, on or off the record.

That call concerned, mainly, the background as to how I became involved in the situation in Oldham and how it was proposed to deal with it, going forward. It was a frank exchange and, it is fair to say, I found Cllr Fielding a measured, intelligent, articulate, committed individual, with surprisingly little personal antipathy towards his critics. His principal concerns were the impact on family, friends and colleagues.

He accepted, without question, that my investigations would be independent, first and foremost, and evidence-based. If wrongdoing by the Council, or himself, was uncovered then it would be reported, without fear or favour. He also took on board that I have no political allegiance, whatsoever.

Since then, we have communicated sporadically, neutrally and professionally by email and telephone, in the same way I have done with other influencers in Oldham and the wider region. On the clear understanding that if the output was to come under public scrutiny there is nothing that would be found beyond a journalist engaged in the locality maintaining contact with local politicians, council officers, police officers and staff. As is done, routinely, elsewhere in my spheres of operation.

There is absolutely no question, as has been frequently asserted by Raja’s Rabble, that I am influenced, retained or paid by Cllr Fielding, or his Council, or the police to act as his, or their, ‘attack dog’. As those who know me well would attest, my integrity is not for sale. The gut feeling is that the Council Leader is very much of the same genre. The senior police officers within Q Division, with whom there has been interaction regarding safeguarding, have been impressively responsive, effective and efficient.

The dog I have in this particular fight is being asked, repeatedly, by police whistleblowers, led by ex-GMP Superintendent Peter Jackson, to conduct an investigation into allegations of reprehensible conduct by elected officials and senior police officers in the town. The reality turned out to be very different: It is the disgraceful, obnoxious behaviour of those making the allegations that is called into serious question.

As for Cllr Fielding, this is a distillation of what the issues against him amount to: The modus operandus appears to be that Raja Miah either publishes an allegation (or a scattergun series of them) on his Recusant Nine blog, his Facebook page or on his now infamous Sunday night podcast – and then the Rabble simply chant a chorus without ever, it seems, checking the provenance, or the existence of any supporting evidence, of what is being alleged:

(i) Cllr Fielding is allegedly complicit, and as council leader takes a principal role, in covering up child industrial scale sex abuse in the town.

+ This allegation was publicly, and comprehensively, rebuffed at the last full meeting of the Council. The relevant sections where this topic was aired can be viewed here and here.

+ The meeting, and its out-turn on the CSE issue, was also widely reported in the local and regional media (read more here).

+ Operation Hexagon, a wide ranging police investigation, has been running alongside an independent assurance review of child sex exploitation since November, 2019. The Hexagon probe sits alongside two other widely publicised operations, Green Jacket and Exeter, that have uncovered hundreds of victims and perpetrators across the Greater Manchester Region.

(ii) Cllr Fielding turns a blind eye to a paedophile ring operating out of the Civic Hall.

+ As allegations go, this as grotesque as they come. Particularly as the Miah evidence appears to centre around the activities of a former Liberal Democrat councillor, Rod Blyth, convicted of child sex abuse offences in December, 2019. He resigned from Oldham Council in September, 2017 citing ‘personal reasons’ and with a reference to a police investigation.

+ No indecent images were found on any of his council equipment by the police, who seized and analysed those items. Raja contends that the Council, and its Leader in particular, had a duty to inform the public of this conviction of a private citizen. At the same time, exempting a fellow Liberal Democrat councillor and close friend, Mohib Uddin, from such responsibility. Together with the many other Civic Hall insiders from whom he claims he routinely receives information. Curiously, Greater Manchester Police is not attacked for ‘keeping the conviction a secret’.

+ Of all the councillors to whom I’ve spoken, including the Leader, none had prior knowledge of the Blyth conviction until it entered the public domain. A comment that, presumably, applies to ex-Cllr Uddin. It certainly applies to Lib Dem Leader and former Council leader, Howard Sykes, who issued an unequivocal statement to that effect on 20th September, 2020 on his website (read in full here).

(iii) Cllr Fielding has undue influence with those engaged upon an Assurance Review that commenced in November, 2020.

+ Those persons are the Greater Manchester Mayor, who commissioned the Review, and the investigators appointed by him, Malcolm Newsam and Gary Ridgway. Generally regarded as two of the leading specialists in the country for this type of work. Again, this was dealt with at the last Council meeting, as it had been previously, by Cllr Fielding, in the local and regional media.

+ Messrs Newsam and Ridgway are independent of any body under review. Anyone doubting that status, is invited to read their report on Operation Augusta, published earlier this year (read here). An outcome that was devastating to both the council involved and the police, whose collective failings over child safeguarding were forensically and ruthlessly exposed. The proposition that they have turned up in Oldham to execute a ‘cover-up’ that benefits local councillors, and suits a warped narrative of a group of discontents, simply has no basis in fact or evidence.

The Assurance Review is due to report very shortly. Operation Hexagon has already acted on some of its findings, which are expected to be critical of both the council and the police over past failings in Oldham.

(iv) Cllr Fielding has covered up the abrupt departure of Dr Mark Peel from the Assurance Review and failed to disclose to the public the reasons why the academic beat a hasty retreat from Oldham.

+ Having spoken to a number of interested parties regarding this issue, the best answer, provisionally, is that he did not give a specific reason. Dr Peel recused himself shortly after receiving an email from a well regarded child sex abuse campaigner, whom has since, very sadly, passed away. It criticised his credentials and past record, particularly in relation to what was regarded as a ‘whitewash’ over council CSE failings in neighbouring Kirklees (read more here). Whether the two events are connected only Dr Peel can say. What can be stated with certainty, however, is that there is no ‘cover-up’ (or a reason for one) and the citizens of Oldham are much better placed after the appointment of the two leaders in their field.

+ I can add to that a personal note: Dr Peel had oversight of one of the least rigorous investigation reports ever put in front of me – out of thousands over the years. A case to which I am very adjacent, the murder of Leeds schoolteacher, Ann Maguire, at Corpus Christi School in 2014, includes a safeguarding review signed off by him (read here). It has the appearance of a pre-formed decision with only the narrative relevant to that outcome explored. As expounded elsewhere, Oldham had a lucky escape whatever the circumstances of his resignation. Raja Miah’s repeated attempt to make political capital from the departure of Dr Peel is, put shortly, misconceived. It also conceals the fact that, at the time the subject email was sent to the newly appointed investigator, by the late Steven Walker-Roberts, the two of them were closely associated.

(v) Cllr Fielding accused the activists of ‘bare faced lies’ over their allegations of child sex abuse cover-up.

+ During a public question time session at a stormy council meeting on 7th November, 2019, Jackie Stanton, former Liberal Democrat deputy leader in Oldham, made these points about the allegations.

By way of pre-amble, she claimed that the reputation of the Borough Council appeared, to her at least, to be at an “all-time low”.

“It continues with the extremely serious allegations of child sexual exploitation [‘cover-up’]; there are allegations appearing daily on social media relating to alleged mismanagement and poor decision making [planning] by senior officers of this council,” she added.

Then came the question: “Would the leader agree, all these allegations are extremely serious and damaging to the borough. Will he tell us how he and the chief executive intend to deal with them, and will he tell us if he is capable of restoring confidence in the council.”

Cllr Fielding pulled no punches in his response:

“Over the last few months there have been daily postings on social media about planning and historic safeguarding incidents.

“These allegations have been combined with a series of personal online attacks on councillors, residents, MPs and council officers, and often come from people with a clear political agenda.

“We will always take action where appropriate, including the recently announced review into historic safeguarding led by Dr Mark Peel. 

“Too often, however, the allegations and claims made online are bare faced lies designed purely to stoke fears and score political points.

“I urge people to think twice about these things they read online”.

+ The Leader’s blunt approach to certain issues, and willingness to give undeserving agitators a higher platform, might well be taken on board as a learning point. But the simple fact is this: Raja Miah’s campaigning is characterised by the repeated use of untruths, half-truths, misrepresentations and conveniently trimmed narratives. Anyone perusing the previous Oldham articles on this website can have absolutely no doubt about that. It is a mystery as to how and why he has been allowed to continue in this vein, by both the council and the police, for so long.

+ Similarly, the incessant social media output of Kerry Skelhorn, using her “Rocky Skelshaw” nom de plume, is frequently estranged from the truth. Including her false claim that she “took Oldham Council to judicial review and won”. That was over the planning matter, concerning the re-siting of Saddleworth School, the cause of so much disquiet. An objective reading of the judgment handed down in those proceedings reveals that her role was very minor, as one of over 600 objectors. She was not recorded as either the applicant, interested party or intervener in those proceedings.

+ The reader is invited to form their own view over whether the rantings of just those two can be fairly characterised as ‘bare faced lies’. Particularly, set against a background of Raja Miah repeatedly claiming Oldham is “my town” or “our town”. He hasn’t lived there for 16 years according to Land Registry records. Similarly, with Miss Skelhorn, who has much to say about “her” Council when she actually works for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Suffolk and Norfolk.

(vi) Most recently, that Cllr Fielding has harassed four individuals by contacting their employers about offensive posts on social media. They are Mark Wilkinson, a former Greater Manchester Police officer who now works, post retirement, for Sodexo Justice who are a contractor to Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service; his stepdaughter Sarah Radcliffe who is a teaching assistant at a local school; Jane Barker, a researcher at the University of Manchester; and Mohib Uddin, an employee of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and, as mentioned earlier in the piece, formerly a prominent Liberal Democrat councillor in Oldham.

Wilkinson’s wife, Kathleen, is the Leader of Failsworth Independent Party (FIP) and Mark is the Treasurer. He is standing as a candidate against Sean Fielding in the forthcoming elections. Several months ago, Mrs Wilkinson sought repeatedly to make contact with me, in not particularly flattering terms. When I eventually responded, she was mostly reluctant to answer journalistic enquiries and sought to paint her husband and daughter as victims.

There is a FIP website that benefits from some smart design and pretty colours, but is completely absent of any news of their aims and values, or any form of manifesto. The be all, and end all, of the FIPs appears to be: We find the Labour Party and Sean Fielding, in particular, objectionable and we are prepared to use fair means or foul to unseat them/him.

The FIPs have one sitting councillor, Brian Hobin, another key agitator in the Oldham Council child sex abuse ‘cover-up’ narrative. His output on the topic rarely appears to rise above the ludicrous, amplified by a motion brought to the last council meeting, alongside the Conservative Group leader, John Hudson, that was, at best, counter-intuitive and, at worst, a poorly disguised attempt to smear the Labour Party and leading figures within it. Notably, Sean Fielding.

Their actions, accompanied by unpleasant, inappropriate remarks during the meeting, were roundly rejected by a very substantial majority of fellow councillors. A fair few of them visibly angry at the allegations laid against them, collectively, by Cllr Hobin and Hudson.

There has been a number of ‘tit for tat’ complaints made against Cllr Fielding:

Mark Wilkinson: He made a Standards complaint objecting to the detailed, wide-ranging complaint against him to his present employer (in which I was also unflatteringly name-checked). Cllr Fielding’s complaint was partially upheld, in that Wilkinson brought his employers into disrepute over posts on social media. Mark did not cite any areas of the Member Code of Conduct that had been broken. This complaint, now dismissed, is one of a number he claims would be made. There have been at least two others, to different levels of the Labour Party, both also dismissed, and it has been posted online that he has reported Cllr Fielding to the police for an unspecified offence (or offences). Cllr Fielding has, at the time of publication, had no contact from the police, other than to check on his welfare in relation to the threats posed by those being mobilised by Raja Miah’s online activities.

A feature of the complaint process was the attempt by Mark Wilkinson, a police officer for 32 years, to mislead his employer by claiming the posts referred to in the complaint did not exist, despite the presence of screen shots.


Jane BarkerAs with Mark Wilkinson, she made a complaint objecting to the enquiry made by Cllr Fielding to the University of Manchester. Essentially, they were asked if the re-circulation of offensive material posted by Raja Miah, using a Twitter account that included the University in her biography, was acceptable to that institution. She was, as a result and quite understandably, asked to detach her personal postings and extreme views from any association with the University. That common sense outcome has produced the most extraordinary, litigious response from Ms Barker.

In her own complaint to the Council, she did not cite any areas of the Member Code of Conduct as having been broken, but listed a range of criminal offences that included misfeasance in public office and unauthorised surveillance. Claiming, bizarrely, that to view her publicly accessible tweets, on an open platform, required authorisation by way of the draconian Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act, 2000 (RIPA for short).

The complaint was, unsurprisingly, dismissed. Ms Barker, in an email sent separately to Cllr Fielding, also said she would report him to the police for harassment and employ solicitors to sue him for defamation. There has been no contact with Cllr Fielding from the police, or solicitors, in relation to any enquiries or reports Jane has made. Ms Barker also complained to the Labour Party. An official described her complaint as “mad” and it, too, was summarily dismissed.


Raja Miah: He made a Standards complaint to Oldham Council objecting to Cllr Fielding referring to him in the complaints against Jane Barker and Mark Wilkinson. As with the other complaints against Cllr Fielding, he did not cite breaches of the Member Code of Conduct and did not dispute the descriptions of either him or his behaviour. He simply said that he did not like them. The complaint itself also contained personal abuse directed at Cllr Fielding. Miah was given 14 days to clarify more precisely the substance of his grievances. This expired on 30th November, 2020. Nothing further was received from him. Raja claims he has also reported Cllr Fielding to the Labour Party and, he says, to the police. Cllr Fielding has had no contact from either in relation to those complaints.

Raja Miah has also posted a “legal letter” online saying that he was suing Oldham Council for defamation. A check with both the Manchester Registry of the High Court and the Royal Courts of Justice reveals that no claim form with Raja Miah as claimant and Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council as defendant has been filed in the Queen’s Bench Division, as yet. It is not clear how the usual £10,000 court fee for such actions would be funded.


Mohib Uddin: A complaint was made against him, by Cllr Fielding, to his employer, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It raised the issue of publicly accusing the Council of financial corruption and then providing no supporting evidence. HMRC routinely say that they “take such matters seriously” but do not report upon what action they may have taken. It is public knowledge, however, that Uddin has not tweeted since September, 2020. He told me at the time that he was not at all concerned about the complaint to his employer and laughed it off. He also said that Cllr Fielding had made a complaint to the Liberal Democrats about him. This concerns acting in an advisory capacity to Debbie Barratt-Cole, a candidate in the Oldham West and Royton during the general election. She stood as a candidate for the People of Oldham and Saddleworth Party (the POOS). There is a widely circulated video capturing him at a campaign meeting, advising her on literature. Notwithstanding, Mohib disputes this complaint and there is a hearing, at the national level of the Liberal Democrat Party, on 10th December, 2020, to consider the matter and, if proven, whether to revoke his membership.

There has been no tit-for-tat complaint from Mohib Uddin against Cllr Fielding, although he continues to post negatively about him. One recent Facebook offering, on the topic of a petition that has been raised recently by Raja Miah, calling for the arrest of Sean Fielding, is signed off “Tick tock”.

The petition, addressed to the Home Secretary, has the appearance of a last throw of the dice for those that have complained against Cllr Fielding. Having taken their issues to the Council and the Labour Party – and received short thrift – further complaints, as yet unparticularised, are said to have been made to the police. There has, so far, been no action taken against Cllr Fielding by the Greater Manchester force as a result.

The petition is also an exercise in futility, a point that can be made with some certainty:

Firstly, having sat through a County Court trial, then High Court appeal, over a wrongful arrest of a Bradford doctor that has spanned almost two years and is, in fact, still ongoing (read more here), I would regard myself as reasonably expert in the relevant sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. These govern the reasonable grounds for suspicion of an offence that may lead to an arrest, for which the bar is set low. Particularly, at street level. However, there is a necessity test that the arresting officer must undertake, for which the bar is, conversely, very high.

Deprivation of a person’s liberty by the State is a very serious matter – and Parliament requires that the police explore other means of advancing their enquiries prior to arrest. The most commonly used, of course, is attendance at a police station for a voluntary interview. Particularly, if there is no immediate threat to life or property and the suspect is from a stable background, has no criminal record and is likely to co-operate with the police. All factors that plainly apply in the case of Sean Fielding.

Secondly, the Home Secretary has no locus is such matters. Chief constables of the 43 Home Office police forces have complete operational independence. That includes being able to resist pressure from Ministers of State. The chances of Priti Patel calling up Ian Hopkins, the current incumbent at Greater Manchester Police, to ask him to arrest a Council leader in the force area, regarding complaints that appear to have little or no substance, are, correspondingly, zero.

A surprising aspect of this petition is that one of Raja Miah’s main proponents, the aforementioned Peter Jackson, did not advise him of these key legal issues before making a collective fool of themselves. A remark that could also apply to Mark Wilkinson, who must also have made an arrest or two in a lengthy police career that began as a cadet and ended as a sergeant.

‘Jacko’, as he known widely amongst police colleagues past and present, in a show of Rabble solidarity, has also made a complaint against Cllr Fielding. Apparently, on the grounds that he was mentioned in at least one of the complaints made by the council leader to employers. That is quite extraordinary, on any independent view, when the ex-cop’s Twitter timeline comprises of, almost entirely, dishing out stick to public figures, including Sean Fielding.

Peter Jackson, along with ‘Google Expert’, Susan Dolan, another Raja Miah fanatic, are two of the prime movers behind a Twitter account with the handle ‘Alice Odette Hallowes’ (@TruthsayerOdet1) . This is one of the most prolific and disgraceful accounts on Twitter, with some posts that go to contempt of court at their highest, commenting on live criminal proceedings, and in the gutter for too much of the rest of the time with wild, unevidenced allegations and smears. A matter over which I severely warned Jacko when we last spoke.

Until now, I have had to remain silent as to his association with that entity, as the subject conversation was held in confidence. But, very recently, a former Rabble member was ‘turned’ and the information has now been given to me independently.

Even more surprising is that Jacko, who served as a sergeant in Oldham in the late 1990s, doggedly retains his affinity with Miah after the latter has been thoroughly exposed as ‘a wrong ‘un’. He is also an avid supporter of the far right, anti-Sean Fielding, anti-Jim McMahon, anti-Andy Burnham, anti-Neil Wilby Oldham Eye social media account, whose output, not infrequently, strays into what might very well be argued as racism.

As a result of this seemingly unbreakable link with Raja Miah, the Jackson claims of the moral high ground, by way of his his police whistleblowing, have little remaining substance. He is a laughing stock amongst those influencers to whom I’ve spoken, incredulous that a renowned murder detective could be sucked in by an imposter such as Raja. Their credibility is in shreds.

Moreover, he cannot say he wasn’t warned. Either from this quarter or by fellow police whistleblower, Maggie Oliver.

But the die is now cast, and Peter Jackson is not the only high profile campaigner to have backed the wrong horse. There are plenty of others for whom the canvassing of this journalistic investigation, and all that has gone with it, is now a matter of profound regret.

As for the Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council Leader, he can sleep easy in his bed. There will be no 6am ‘knock’ by the local constabulary, no embarrassing arrest wearing only torn underpants – and no charges in respect of futile, embarrassing complaints lodged by local discontents.

This is a developing news story and will be updated. Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.

Right of reply was again offered to Raja Miah. He declined all previous invitations and made no attempt respond here, either. Instead, mobilising his foot soldiers to ‘up the ante’ on their smear campaigns.

The same courtesy was offered to Jane Barker, Kathleen and Mark Wilkinson, and Mohib Uddin. No response was received from any of them, either.

Ms Barker elected, instead, to breach journalistic privilege and information rights by sharing a protectively marked email in which the necessary cautions were clearly set out. A matter that will be determined by the County Court, ultimately.

Other political party group leaders in Oldham, apart from Labour, have also been invited to contribute to this piece. Cllr Sykes was both forthright and helpful. No acknowledgement or response was received from either Cllr Hudson, Cllr Hobin.

Following publication of this article, complaints were received by Oldham Council regarding the content that referred to Standards outcomes affecting Raja Miah, Mark Wilkinson and Jane Barker. The Council has, quite correctly on its part, referred the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Full co-operation will be given to any investigation that follows, if the statutory regulator deems it necessary to record the complaints.

Page last updated: Friday 11th December, 2020 at 1855 hours

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

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

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. 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 Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.