So I arrested him for something, sergeant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Bradbury – Am I obliged?

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

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

Mr Bradbury – Laburnum Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Bradbury – Could I ask some questions please?

Custody Sergeant – You certainly can.

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

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

Mr Bradbury – Not

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

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

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

Mr Bradbury – But but I’m not obliged to

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

Mr Bradbury – Sorry that’s not correct.

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

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

Custody Sergeant – with me as you wish

Mr Bradbury – that he mentioned terrorism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 5  Preparation of terrorist acts

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

(a) committing acts of terrorism, or

(b) assisting another to commit such acts,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If at first you don’t succeed

At the beginning of October, 2018 an exclusive article on this website foretold the retirement of the chief constable of West Yorkshire Police (read here).

Dee Collins did not respond to a private message sent to her, as she had done previously when the topic first surfaced earlier in the year. But the WYP press office reluctantly confirmed the previously concealed fact that she was joining the College of Policing, to oversee a three month training course at their Ryton headquarters, beginning in January, 2019.

The press office, again after being pushed, also confirmed the exclusive news that John Robins would take over temporary command of the force, together with the details of the senior office re-shuffle that would follow.

They denied she was retiring. But pressed a second time on the basis of the strength of the intelligence that she was, there was no response. Instead a lengthy statement was given, by Collins, to Bradford’s Telegraph and Argus, one of a number of ‘tame’ local newspapers in West Yorkshire that is content to provide an all in the garden in rosy public relations service on behalf of the area’s police force.

The T&A article (read here) included this gem: “Although I will be working out of Force, I will keep a keen eye on what is happening in West Yorkshire and contrary to rumours I have seen circulating on social media, I will be returning to my post following secondment!”

At the time, a well-placed BBC source was of the view Collins would ‘return from the College in April, 2019, say her goodbyes, and retire in May’. Other police sources, close to a number of senior officers, said the chief would not return after she left in December, 2018. All those sources are usually well informed.

She would reach 32 years service shortly after the Ryton trip and could choose to leave with a huge lump sum and a yearly pension in excess of £80,000.

Also, the chief constable role in one of the country’s largest police forces has, in all truth, proved beyond her. It would be a sensible time to exit before her personal standing diminishes amidst a further wave of negative publicity for WYP. She survives in the job, largely, because of a woefully weak, and compromised, police commissioner who provides zero effective oversight. Mark Burns-Williamson and Dee Collins are well matched, of that there is no doubt, but the evidence shows that is not to the benefit of West Yorkshire precept payers.

As an experienced police officer, the latter ought also to be aware of the perils of relying on a PCC that applies Grecian 2000 to his hair, usually a reliable indicator of a man who is not what he seems to be. The vain Burns-Williamson appears to have ceased the practice since it was drawn to the wider public’s attention on social media.

That apart, being an amiable, praise-showering, selfie-loving individual and a diversity, equality champion in the wider police service, doesn’t cut it when the force is engulfed in scandal after scandal that Collins appears, or claims, to know nothing about. But deploys precious police resources smearing, and attempting to criminalise, her critics – and spending grotesque sums on PR stunts, and pointless campaigns, to paper over the cracks.

One of the policing command units over which she is routinely effusive is Kirklees. She recently promoted one ex-Divisional Commander to temporary chief (Robins), another to assistant chief (Tim Kingsman) and the most recent (Steve Cotter) to head the prestigious Leeds Division. Yet, Huddersfield is now officially rated the worst place to live in UK. Gun and knife crime are out of control, and lawless gangs give the town the look and feel of The Wild West. Top that off with industrial scale child rape, and trafficking, in the town that WYP, in concert with the local council, chose to cover up and the disconnect between Collins’ blue sky world, and reality, may be readily apprehended.

Regrettably, much the same can be said about WYP’s Bradford Division.

Her flawed judgement of the strengths and weaknesses of other subordinates is also concerning. Regular promotions for such as Robins, Nick Wallen and Osman Khan, both now chief superintendents in key roles, Mabs Hussain, now a controversial ACC appointment at Greater Manchester Police (read more here) bear this out. She also has Angela Williams in her command team, as an ACC, who doesn’t, it is said, have the full confidence of the rest of her fellow senior managers. These are the highest profile examples of a larger number that set alarm bells ringing.

In the event, Robins took over as West Yorkshire Police chief at the beginning of December. The reason for the discrepancy in their press office statement has not been made clear.

Other disclosures obtained via freedom of information requests reveal a further curiosity: The College of Policing are at pains to avoid the term ‘secondment’ for the period Collins will be acting as Course Service Director for the 2019 cohort of the Strategic Command Course (SCC). She is on a ‘flexible attachment’ they are at pains to say. Which appears, taken at its face, to be a device designed to avoid entering into a formal Central Service Secondment agreement. The sharp-eyed will have noticed that the chief constable described it as a ‘secondment’ in her gushing quotes to the T&A. In fact she refers to ‘secondment’ twice. So there can have been no mistake. Especially as Mike Cunningham, the chief executive at the College also refers to ‘secondment’:

“To have a Chief Constable of Dee’s standing in this role reinforces the importance of the course in the development of the future most senior leaders of the Service. I would like to thank both Dee for this commitment and Mark Burns-Williamson, West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, for supporting Dee’s short secondment to the College of Policing to deliver the course.”.

No mention there of her becoming WYP chief constable because not one other senior police officer in the country could countenance working for PCC Burns-Williamson after the Norman Bettison and Mark Gilmore debacles, in which both former chiefs complained bitterly of betrayal by their PCC. one in a book and the other at the Royal Courts of Justice.

The SCC is an essential stepping stone for officers wanting to progress from chief superintendent to rank of assistant chief constable. Mabs Hussain was a successful candidate in the 2018 version.

Some might say Director of the latest renewal of the testing two module course is a perverse appointment for one who took four attempts to pass her sergeant’s exams and five applications (she says three) to progress from ACC to deputy chief. But, as it appears she was the only candidate for the SCC supervisory role, and a feverish, happy-clappy networker, maybe it is not so strange, after all?

It is, also, worth recalling that Collins was the only candidate when appointed to chief constable at WYP, and Hussain was the only candidate for his new posting at GMP. As was his new chief constable, Ian Hopkins.

A College of Police spokesperson has provided this response to a request seeking confirmation as to whether the WYP chief freely applied for the job of her own volition, prior to the closing date of 10th August, 2016, or was encouraged to ‘apply’ afterwards in absence of any other candidates. An increasingly recurring, and troubling, theme in policing circles.

“There was an open and publicly advertised application process for the role of Course Service Director for the 2019 Strategic Command Course. Chief Constable Dee Collins submitted her application prior to the original closing date and was successful. We are delighted to have a Chief Constable of Dee’s standing and experience to lead the course.”

Looking at the letter inviting applications from Mike Cunningham, disclosed by way of a freedom of information request made by Mr Edward Williams, via the What Do They Know website (read in full here), it could not be described as ‘open and publicly advertised’. It appears to have been sent to the 40, or so, eligible chief constables in the UK. No-one else.

The good news, however, is that the College are reimbursing WYP in full for her salary costs, benefits, expenses and overtime whilst she is deployed there. A question that PCC Burns-Williamson declined to address when the issue of the departing chief constable was put to a meeting of his Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel on 9th November, 2018. It also seems that neither the Panel Secretariat, nor any of its Members, were aware of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which was, allegedly, signed three weeks before on 19th October, 2018.

“The Panel saw the benefits of the Chief Constable working in this role and the learning that she will bring back to West Yorkshire as positive”, said a PCP spokesperson. “There was no specific question asked of the PCC regarding the Chief Constable’s remuneration”.

Backdating correspondence, documents is a persistent, and highly disconcerting, habit within WYP and the PCC’s office, so no reliability can be attached to the date on the MoU, absent of disclosure of collateral documents.

Dee Collins has been made aware of this issue many times, and has even indulged herself on one occasion, but does nothing whatsoever to address it. As she fails to do with so many other ethical, professional transgressions of her favoured clique. Which does sit easily with her appointment as Course Director of a group of future police leaders.

It is not known, at present, if Dee Collins retains her other key position as Air Operations Certificate Holder with the troubled National Police Air Service during her flexible attachment. Her head-in-the-sand management style was largely responsible for the recent, and highly publicised, removal from post of the NPAS chief operating officer (read more here). Another exclusive broken on this website.

NPAS was also the subject of scathing criticism in a report published by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary in November, 2017. It cited ‘inept management’ as a key issue to be addressed. The two most senior figures in NPAS are, unsurprisingly, Collins and Burns-Williamson.

A request for confirmation of Ms Collins’ continued tenure has been made to the NPAS press office. Aresponse is still awaited.

Page last updated on Saturday 21st December, 2018 at 2020hrs

Picture credit: Wakefield Express

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

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

© Neil Wilby 2015-2018. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

Black woman in fear of local police forced to leave Bradford

On 22nd April 2014, Oluwatoyin Azeez, a British black woman of Nigerian origin,  was at her home in Bradford with her young children (aged between 1 – 13), when officers from West Yorkshire Police arrived at her property, demanding to speak to Ms Azeez’s lodger (the teenage son of a family friend), who was living with the family at the time. Previous visits to Ms Azeez’s home, by the police, to check on the lodger, who was at the time under a curfew order, had passed entirely peacefully. But on this occasion the lead officer, PC 521 Hirst, forced his way into the premises as soon as Ms Azeez answered the door to him, pushing her to the floor in the process.

Ms Azeez is a law-abiding person, of good character, with no previous convictions, or adverse interactions with the police. She had willingly answered the door to PC Hirst, and the violence which he then displayed, in bursting past her into the house, was completely unjustified.

Ms Azeez, in a state of considerable distress, protested to PC Hirst that he had no right to enter her house in such a manner. She was at the time, dressed only in a loose-fitting kaftan, having been in the shower when the police officers first knocked at the door. At this point, she asked PC Hirst to leave, whereupon he pushed her in the chest, making contact with her breast, and again knocked her to the floor. Now even more distressed, Ms Azeez got to her feet and asked, again, that PC Hirst leave. In response he assaulted her, grabbing her by the neck and pushing her against the wall. All of this was unfolding in front of Ms Azeez’s young children.

The Azeez children pleaded with PC Hirst to release their mother, to no avail. As Ms Azeez began to choke and feel lightheaded, PC Hirst then escalated the assault by spraying CS incapacitant gas into her face at close range, and without warning. The gas spread throughout the close confines of the house, and also began to affect the  young children, one of whom was a one year old infant.

PC Hirst then dragged Ms Azeez outside, and onto the pavement, causing her to fall and strike her head on the ground. Forcing Ms Azeez to keep her head down by kneeling on her back, PC Hirst then handcuffed her arms behind her back and left her lying in the street. Added to the pain and degradation she was already suffering, was the further humiliation that she was wearing only loose-fitting clothing and felt exposed to the public view of her neighbourhood.

PC Hirst then returned and renewed his assault upon Ms Azeez, pulling her to her feet by her handcuffs and then pushing her back down, causing her to bang her head against her garden wall, and vomit. PC Hirst then further tormented Ms Azeez by informing her that, not only was she to be taken into police custody (for no specified reason and in breach of PACE), but, also, Social Services would be called and her children taken away from her.

Ms Azeez was then transported in the caged rear section of a police van to Bradford’s notorious Trafalgar House Police Station, still without any explanation as to why she had been arrested, or even confirmation that she, was, technically, under arrest.

At the police station, PC Hirst falsely asserted that Ms Azeez had assaulted him. But, after listening to his account, the custody sergeant refused to authorise detention of Ms Azeez, on the grounds that PC Hirst had not been acting in the course of his duty. He had, in truth, no lawful right to enter Ms Azeez’s premises, uninvited.

Ms Azeez was then told by the custody sergeant that she was free to go, but was offered no explanation, or apology.  Given her obvious injuries, the custody sergeant advised that he would arrange for her to be given a lift to the local hospital.  She was directed to wait in the police station public waiting area.  She did, for over an hour, before eventually just leaving the police station and walking home, partially clothed and in custody slippers, injured and without any money. After walking some distance, she eventually had to accept a lift from a stranger to get back home.

Fortunately, she discovered that her children had not been taken by Social Services and were, in fact, being looked after by a friend. But all of the family were deeply traumatised by what had happened, and the children, as well as Ms Azeez, were still suffering from the effects of the CS gas spray which PC Hirst had discharged in their home.

PC Hirst is known to have worked in the Bradford City NPT team in 2015 and 2016 as part of their ‘off-road’ motorcycle unit. His current deployment within the force is not known.

Ms Azeez, understandably, brought an official complaint against the police, but found the Professional Standards Department (PSD) officers handling her complaint to be generally unhelpful, rude and dismissive.  Following their ‘investigation’ (the term is used loosely), it was concluded that although the officer did not have a lawful power of entry  he had “an honestly held belief” that he did. Accordingly, the officer did not have a case to answer in misconduct, or gross misconduct, but would “be given words of advice and appropriate training”.

Ms Azeez felt deeply hurt, not only because of the serious and sustained assault she had suffered at the hands of PC Hirst, but because of the total lack of help, or sympathy, offered to her by West Yorkshire Police as a whole, and who, rather than supporting her as a victim, seemed to rally behind, and protect, PC Hirst. She subsequently instructed Iain Gould [1], one of the country’s leading lawyers in police misconduct actions, who commenced court proceedings on behalf of Ms Azeez against West Yorkshire Police for assault and battery, false imprisonment, trespass to property and breaches of the Human Rights Act.

Leading police complaints lawyer, Iain Gould of DPP Law in Liverpool

Following the issue of those proceedings, and just two weeks before trial, West Yorkshire Police agreed at a Joint Settlement Meeting on 29th September 2017 to a payout of £25,000 in damages, plus Ms Azeez’s legal costs and, perhaps, most importantly, and very rarely seen even in successful actions against the police, a formal apology from an Assistant Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police:

“I write on behalf of West Yorkshire Police to offer my sincere apologies for the way in which you were treated by our officers on 22nd April 2014.

Having reviewed the incident, I can see that there were significant failings on the part of the officers involved, both in terms of their knowledge of their lawful powers and then the way in which the situation developed. It is also unacceptable that you (Ms Azeez) were not provided with a proper explanation for the custody officer’s decision to release you from custody on the night of the incident.

I fully appreciate how distressing this whole event must have been for you, and acknowledge that the consequences of the incident, for both you and your children, have been serious and prolonged. 

As outlined in the report of the Professional Standards Department, both PC Hirst and PC Nkasu received words of advice and appropriate training as a result of this incident to ensure the same mistakes are not made again.

West Yorkshire Police aim to ensure the safety of all members of the community and, on this day, I very much regret that the standards we set were not met.

The settlement terms achieved should go a long way to helping Ms Azeez put her life back together after this highly distressing incident, the memories of which had caused her to have to relocate her family from the Bradford area to London”.

What happened to Ms Azeez and her family is truly outrageous and the settlement does not take away the fact that two officers, one a perpetrator, and the other failing to challenge the unlawful behaviour, have been present at a serious assault on a mother, in front of her young children. Then continued to taunt and humiliate her, in a most calculating and appalling fashion. Yet, they remain serving officers with West Yorkshire Police.

Iain Gould concludes; “Obviously the assault perpetrated upon her by an armed officer in front of her young children was absolutely unconscionable, but to me equally shocking and deplorable was the way in which West Yorkshire Police as an organisation callously turned their backs on Ms Azeez once they determined that they in fact had no grounds to arrest her. 

It would have been a simple and straightforward matter at that stage for a senior officer to have offered an apology, some words of kindness and  arrange immediate medical treatment and, thereafter, a lift home.  Even just an explanation as to what had happened. 

As it was Ms Azeez was left completely in the dark both as to the reason for her arrest and the reason for her release.  But it seems that the Force was only interested in her if they could classify her as a villain; they had no concern for her as a victim – the victim of one of their own officers, indeed.  Having been assaulted in her home, effectively abducted, separated from her children and taken across town against her will, and without any just cause, she was now ‘thrown out’ onto the street to make her own way home. 

Further insult to injury was added by the forces’ usual approach to a complaint against its officers:  Treating the complainant with contempt, and carrying out an investigation motivated by the desire not to discover the truth, but to shield their own officers.  Eventually, they have done the right thing, but only because my client had the courage and conviction to pursue a court claim to enforce her rights”.

Whilst it might be difficult for the reader to comprehend, the conduct of the two constables is not at all out of the routine for West Yorkshire Police, and they feel empowered to act this way because they are certain that, backed by the powerful police officers’ ‘union’, the Police Federation, there will be no meaningful sanction from the force’s entirely discredited Professional Standards Department.

West Yorkshire Police chief constable, Dee Collins. Pictured on duty with “PC Edward Walker”.

Meantime the force’s chief constable, Dee Collins is happy to broadcast, on social media, pictures of her carrying a teddy bear around and, at the same time, pushing out PR guff about how she puts victims at the heart of her police work. That, on the evidence of the Azeez case, is simply not true.

The chief constable also boasts about providing statements in support of her officers who are assaulted (‘he touched my arm‘ was the basis of one ‘assault on constable’ charge) but was nowhere in sight in Oluwatoyin Azeez’s hour of need. It is also noteworthy that PC Hirst made an allegation of assault against Ms Azeez that the custody sergeant, to his credit, wouldn’t entertain.

That is double standards at its very worst. Ms Collins’ past role as a ‘Fed rep’ has, perhaps, never really left her?

The reality, as I know much better than most, when dealing with West Yorkshire Police, and particularly their notorious PSD [2], is very different from the ‘caring’ PR face they try to project. The unofficial force motto, famously immortalised by author David Peace in his seminal Red Riding trilogy, perhaps sums them up best: “Where we do what we want“. [3]

Ms Azeez’s elected policing representative, PCC Mark Burns-Williamson, and the chief constable, Ms Collins, were approached for comment.

The question put to both was: “In all the circumstances of this case, is the Chief Constable satisfied that ‘words of advice’ was the appropriate disciplinary sanction for PC’s Hirst and Nkatsu?”

The force press office provided a response that was almost identical to the gist of the letter of apology sent to Ms Azeez. When pressed for a comment attributable to the chief constable they, surprisingly, declined.

The PCC’s press officer, Dolores Cowburn, did not even acknowledged the email sent to her.

 

[1] Contact Iain Gould, via his website, at http://www.iaingould.co.uk

[2] Unprofessional Standards website at http://www.upsd.co.uk

[3] The Guardian: ‘Northern Exposure’ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/feb/28/david-peace-red-riding-tv

Page last updated Friday 17th November, 2017 at 1710hrs

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 2015-2017. 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.

 

Will ‘sex in sauna’ officer slip off disciplinary hook again?

In April 2012, Chief Inspector Elizabeth Belton of West Yorkshire Police achieved national notoriety as the ‘Sex in the sauna’ cop.

The incident resulted in a punch-up between Chief Superintendent Ian Whitehouse and Ms Belton’s husband, Sergeant Chris Beddis and was splashed on the front page of the Yorkshire Post newspaper. National newspaper coverage soon followed [1].

This steamy tale was one of a number of exclusive pieces upon which I worked with the award-winning investigative journalist, Rob Waugh. Another major scoop was the outing of convicted paedophile, Mick Vause, who, at the time, was a long-serving detective constable in the force’s perenially disgraced Professional Standards Department [2].

Following the sauna debacle, Ms Belton, a graduate of Brigshaw Comprehensive School on the outskirts of Castleford, took on extra duties which included responsibility for the Standards Unit for North East Leeds, signing off investigations into complaints made by members of the public.

She also chaired misconduct meetings with officers whose fell foul of police regulations. West Yorkshire Police clearly didn’t see the irony in either of those two situations.

Mr Whitehouse retired in 2016 from his job as Director of the National Police Air Service (NPAS), having transferred out of his role as Divisional Commander of the North West Leeds Division, based at Weetwood, shortly after the sauna incident. NPAS are currently mired in their own sex scandal as lurid allegations emerge of South Yorkshire Police officers using an aircraft to film members of the public having sex, or sunbathing naked.

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 08.37.54

A Professional Standards Department (PSD) source has also revealed that the police helicopter has, allegedly, been used on covert surveillance of at least one fellow officer. It is also said that the necessary authorisation to do so was not lawfully obtained. This impropriety would involve criminal prosecutions of those responsible – and a bigger story than the ‘sex in the sky’ farrago. There is no suggestion that Whitehouse knew of the deployment of the aircraft for this purpose. The information to hand suggests that the helicopter crew were deployed on ‘pre-planned operations’ tasked by PSD. Many flights are involved.

Ms Belton has said on social media that Ian Whitehouse definitely did not know about this misuse of police resources.

At the time of the ‘sex in the sauna’ scandal, West Yorkshire Police and their Police Authority, after the damaging story reached the press, focused on trying to root out my ‘whistle blowers’ rather than imposing either criminal, or disciplinary sanctions upon either Whitehouse, Ms Belton or the unfortunately cuckolded Mr Beddis.

The decision not to pursue the three officers was taken by Deputy Chief Constable John Parkinson (who retired from the force shortly afterwards after a brief, but troubled, spell as chief constable) and nodded through by the current Police and Crime Commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson.

Instead, an enquiry, believed to be headed up by another chief inspector, Jim Dunkerley, was later launched against me to try to uncover police whistle blowers – and stem the flow of information that was leading to damaging press, radio and TV coverage of misconduct within the force. There was also widespread opprobium brought about by the launch of the uPSD whistleblowers website [3] and, particularly, on social media as scandal after scandal surfaced.

Allegedly based in an outbuilding in the car park at HQ, and reporting to Deputy Chief Constable John Robins, the investigation is believed to have involved intrusive surveillance and RIPA authorisation. A matter always denied by the force when I have pressed them on this.

In a face-to-face encounter with his Command Team colleague, Assistant Chief Constable Andy Battle at police HQ in 2015, I was asked to leave the inner sanctum of the Laburnum Road, Wakefield building on the basis that I was a ‘security threat‘. Invited to add substance to his claim, Battle declined to do so.

The uPSD website has been subject of repeated denial of service attacks over the past two years. The perpetrators have a very high level of technical sophistication, according to the webmaster and a security specialist consulted over the issue (he provides services to police forces as a retired intelligence officer).

In March 2017, Liz Belton hit the headlines, again, for all the wrong reasons. It was revealed, in a series of national newspaper stories, that she had been placed on ‘restricted duties‘ following a complaint over an alleged racist remark made at a detectives’ three day Christmas celebration.

By this time, she was a senior investigating officer (SIO) in West Yorkshire Police’s elite Homicide and Major Enquiry Team (HMET) and was leading the cold case enquiry into the historic, and high profile, murder of Wakefield teenager Elsie Frost in 1965, as well as a probe into the murder of 27-year-old Nicholas Dean Williams, who was found murdered in his home in Stanley, near Wakefield.

It was a blow to the Frost family, who are known to have built a good, and fruitful, relationship with the SIO. It is also well known, locally, that this was regarded by DCI Belton as a seminal case in her career and she was very hopeful it could be solved.

Just a week later, it was revealed that the West Yorkshire Police press office had, not for the first time, misled both the media and the public: Ms Belton had, since a Regulation 15 notice was issued in January 2017, alleging gross misconduct, been arrested in a pre-dawn raid on her family home. She was detained on suspicion of two criminal offences: Misconduct in public office and police computer misuse. She was suspended whilst those criminal investigations continued.

According to a well placed source, a section 32 search was also carried out after the arrest, that included vehicles and outbuildings, as well as Ms Belton’s house. It is believed that she was taken to Huddersfield police station and held there all day.

Given what is at stake both for the force and, more particularly the officers concerned, it has to be assumed that officers with exemplary records, and the necessary investigative competency and rigour, have been deployed by the chief constable. Otherwise, the twin pillars of reassurance, and public confidence, would crumble.

In July, 2017 Chief Inspector Belton appeared in the dock at Leeds Magistrates Court along with two other police officers. PC Judith Mulligan and Sergeant Mohammed Gother. They are all charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Allegations relate to an investigation into a burglary at PC Mulligan’s home in 2013, in which it is claimed that the victim, an officer who began her service 27 years ago at Morley Police Station, was shown a photograph of suspects ahead of an identification procedure

Ms Belton is also accused of seven offences of breaching data laws. It is said that she misused police computers knowingly, or recklessly, obtaining personal data in relation to four named individuals.

A plea and case management hearing took place in August, 2016. Two subsequent hearings were listed in March and April 2017, and then vacated at short notice due to disclosure issues.

All three police officers deny the charges and a trial is set for 11th September, 2017 before the Recorder of Leeds, His Honour Judge Peter Collier. The accused are all on unconditional bail.

In the usual course of events, a pre-trial review (PTR) would be listed by the court around six weeks before the trial start date. As of 24th July, the court confirmed to me that no Order concerning a PTR had been made. This may well be connected to the long-running police/CPS disclosure issues that have, so far, dogged the process.

The September trial concerns only the perverting justice charges. No date has been set for the data breach hearing.

Mr Gother has now retired from the force, having completed 30 years service. A fourth officer, PC Chris Davey, a neighbourhood patrol officer based at Pudsey police station – and a subordinate of Sergeant Gother at the time – was also arrested in the early morning raids, and detained as part of the same investigation, but no charges were laid against him.

A source close to the gross misconduct investigation into Chief Inspector Belton, the subject of the first round of press coverage in March 2017 [4], claims that there was reluctance from a number of officers present at the Lake District Christmas junket to give evidence against a fellow officer. This included the well-liked junior detective at the centre of the ‘racism’ furore, PC Bud Wasti. 

It is understood that PC Warsi was not the complainant against Ms Belton, in any event. The officer mainly involved was the aforementioned DCI Dunkerley, together with another senior officer, Superintendent Mark Ridley (since promoted to chief super and Head of HMET).

After this article was first published an informant came forward and advanced the proposition that two senior officers (both of superintending rank) had ‘suggested strongly‘ to PC Wasti that he was to become ‘a victim‘. That does not give the impression that an investigation was being conducted at the necessary levels of independence and procedural rigour. If this allegation – and it is no higher than that at present – were found to be true, then the entire misconduct investigation would be tainted.

It has also been alleged that during a very lengthy drinking session, a female officer, not Ms Belton, lifted her dress in the public area of the hotel, and revealed a pair of very skimpy, designer brand (according to the exhibitionist) knickers. Whilst that might be considered perfectly normal  behaviour in some social circles, it could be construed unseemly when you are known to be part of a large group of West Yorkshire Police employees occupying a significant portion of an upmarket Lake District hotel?

This officer, it is said, was not the subject of any misconduct proceedings or even informal words of advice. Which, given the furore caused nationally by the Greater Manchester Police ‘Boobgate‘ scandal, might strike the reasonable minded, independent observer as concerning.

In any event, it certainly sounded as if the detectives’ party went with a swing, reminiscent of the Wakefield CID days of yore.

The Belton probe was downgraded to misconduct after the first round of witness statements had been taken. The racism allegations were not proven. The usual sanction in those circumstances is ‘words of advice‘ or, in the police vernacular, a ‘standards awareness meeting‘.

It is also also understood that the internal investigation fell short of the required standard on a number of other levels, including failure to sieze CCTV and other documentary evidence from the Red Lion in Grasmere; and interview independent, non-police witnesses who were on hotel premises at the time.

This ‘investigation’ was, according to another well placed source, carried out by Chief Inspector Simon Bottomley and Detective Sergeant Penny Morley. Both, to my certain knowledge, work in the force’s discredited Professional Standards Department, and have featured in a number of investigations of which I have close knowledge.

In 2010, Mrs Morley was found by a judge, His Honour Peter Benson, at Bradford Crown Court, to have lied in her evidence during a voir dire and, as a result, stopped a criminal trial concerning another West Yorkshire Police officer, PC Kashif Ahmed, as an abuse of process [5].

It is claimed by Mrs Morley, that no disciplinary proceeding, or criminal prosecution, was mounted against her following a three year investigation, involving many officers, and a collapsed trial that was reported to have cost the taxpayer over £500,000.

I recently had her removed from one investigation, where I act as complaint advocate. Her unwillingness to consider CCTV, Go-Pro Film evidence of alleged assault and criminal damage, led to an information being laid at Kirklees Magistrates Court by the victim and a warrant being issued against the perpetrator, Acting Inspector David Rogerson: Dealing with an officer, such as Mrs Morley, who lied in a a criminal trial is not something either the complainant, or myself, was willing to countenance.

Mrs Morley’s husband, Jon, is a retired police officer cum civilian investigator (by a curious twist of fate employed in HMET). A situation which must create certain tensions, both professionally and domestically, when one of them is a proven liar. Her close friendship with another well known PSD miscreant, Superintendent Steve Bennett, certainly caused tongues to wag at the time of the Ahmed case, especially after she escaped sanction for her perjured evidence. But allegations of any improper relationship came to nothing.

In 2013, Mr Bottomley had an adverse finding made against him, by his own PSD colleagues, concerning mis-handling of evidence and breach of a legal undertaking. Since then he has been at the forefront of an alleged force wide cover-up over the John Elam miscarriage of justice [6]. A matter presently being considered by the Criminal Case Review Commission.

Mr Bottomley has also been responsible, in a field of plenty, for one of the worst complaint investigations I have ever seen concerning a filmed assault on Huddersfield businessman, Stephen Bradbury, and, in yet another ‘cover-up’ farrago, attached himself, outwith the relevant statutory framework, to a ‘love triangle’ investigation into Police Commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson.

In December 2015 I sought, but failed, to have Mr Bottomley removed from any involvement in Operation Lamp, the Greater Manchester Police investigation into the infamous PC Danny Major ‘cover-up’ by PSD [7]. His presence, in my entrenched view, taints the process and I recused myself from it a short time afterwards.

Simon Bottomley was also involved in beating off whistleblower submissions made by a management rank detective, with 30 years exemplary service, over well-rehearsed concerns about the provenance of the investigation into the a murder of a male in Headingley, Leeds and flaws in the investigation of the murder of another male, in the Leeds Road area of Bradford, that led to the conviction of three Asian men. The latter case is known by campaigners as the The Bradford Three [8].

The whistleblower’s identity is known to me. He claims he is in fear of his life after the disclosures made in meetings with Mr Bottomley and the SIO on the Bradford Three investigation, ex-Chief Superintendent Andy Brennan. The latter exited the force, under very strange circumstances, shortly afterwards and re-surfaced as Head of CEOP at the National Crime Agency.

The same whistleblower supported the miscarriage of justice campaign around the John Elam case. As part of his specialist role within the force, the whistleblower had been involved on that investigation in a significant role.

It is not known whether either Mrs Morley, or Mr Bottomley, was involved in the criminal investigation that followed the dramatic arrests and searches of homes, police premises and equipment that has led to the impending court case. That would, no doubt, be revealed at trial if it were the case.

So it seems, for a second time, at the very least, Ms Belton has escaped disciplinary sanction after high jinx involving other senior officers. It is believed that Ian Whitehouse was also present at the HMET party.

In a dramatic turn of events, news reached me, from a number of police sources, that on Friday 7th July, 2017 the force had circularised all officers with information to the effect that DCI Elizabeth Belton had ‘resigned’. Which, in all the circumstances, would be extraordinary under the new Police Conduct Regulations, specifically framed to prevent officers leaving the police force when facing gross misconduct disciplinary proceedings, or criminal investigation. There are special exemptions to those Regulations, but it is not known if these were engaged.

It is a move by the DCC Robins, as Command Team PSD portfolio holder, that is certain to attract a great deal of controversy. It also begs the question as to why a senior officer would ‘resign’ over misconduct matters that are largely unproven and likely to be disposed by way of words of advice?

view_001
The Red Lion in Grasmere. Scene of a controversial 2016 West Yorkshire Police Christmas party.

A counter-allegation by Ms Belton of sexual assault, by a senior male detective (whose identity is known to me), at the same Christmas party, has been recorded as a crime but the present status of that investigation is not known. But, as actus reus was in Cumbria, it is assumed that the county police force there is handling the investigation.

There has also been a employment tribunal claim issued by Elizabeth Belton against West Yorkshire Police over alleged sexual discrimination. This pre-dates her arrest, or the misconduct investigation. It is believed that this action may be connected to a promotion board for a vacant Superintendent post. The aforementioned Jim Dunkerley was also an applicant. It appears that neither got the job.

Ms Belton could not be contacted for comment on the misconduct or tribunal matters.

The force press office issued a terse one line statement: “As proceedings are legally active  in this case, we are unable to comment further“. They refused to be drawn on the apparent contradiction in the Regulations concerning the ‘resignation’ (or retirement) of Ms Belton.

The Police Commissioner’s press officer, Dee Cowburn, did not respond to a request for comment.

The force’s chief constable, Dee Collins, has recently issued a press statement, along with Mark Burns-Williamson, saying some of her officers are ‘exhausted‘. A three day drinking and partying spree by her top detectives might add some context to those remarks.

____________________________________________

Page last updated 1950hrs on Monday 7th August, 2017

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 2015-2017. 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.

[1] Yorkshire Post: [Exclusive] ‘Probe after steam rises at police gym’ 19th April, 2012′

[2] Yorkshire Post: [Exclusive] ‘Ex-detective admits string of child porn offences 9th June 2012’

[3] uPSDWYP: Home page

[4] Daily Mail: ‘Murder detective placed on restricted duties after ‘making a racist comment at her force Christmas party’, 25th March, 2017

[5] Telegraph and Argus: ‘Bradford police officer tells of his relief’, 11th March, 2011

[6] Hansard: Adjournment debate – Gerry Sutcliffe MP, 28th January, 2014

[7] Neil Wilby: ‘Operation Lamp – A Major corruption scandal’, 29th April, 2016

[8] uPSDWYP: ‘The Bradford Three’, 12th March, 2014